Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Vicarious liability cases
Vicarious liability cases
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Vicarious liability cases
Vicarious liability cases
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Vicarious liability cases
The case of Tammy Lou Fontenot v. Taser International, Inc. was about a wrongful death case named Darryl Tuner, a 17-year-old male employed by a grocery store. Darryl was fired for “insubordination” and refused to leave the grocery store. Police were called, and eventually used a Taser in order to take him into custody. Turner died as a result of the Taser being delivered to Turner’s body. Tammy Lou Fontenot filed suit against the City of Charlotte and Taser International seeking money damages for the alleged wrongful death of Darryl Turner.
In the case of Tomcik vs. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Janet Tomcik, the plaintiff, blamed the loss of her right breast on the fact that there was a major delay in her examination and treatment of her tumor. This could be known as nonfeasance negligence, which is the “failure to act when there is a duty to act,” (Pozgar, 2016). The corrections department, or in this case, the defendant, claimed that Tomcik`s cancer was already so developed, that her breast would have been removed regardless of when her official checkup and treatment took place. One stakeholder in this case is Janet Tomcik. She is the patient who not only lost her breast, but endured “physical pain, [and] emotional suffering,” (Tomcik, 1991).
Bobbi Kristina Brown was moved to hospice care. Radar Online, June 24, 2015 reported that the family has agreed to take Bobbi Kristina off drugs so she can pass away naturally. This means that unless a miracle happens, Bobbi Kristina will not be with us for much longer. Bobbi Kristina was found on January 31; face down and unresponsive in her bathtub at her home in Atlanta. She was found by family friend, Max Lomas.
In order for job/position of the defendant in relation to plaintiff to be established the defendant must hold a job or position that is in relation to the plaintiff in order for a legal obligation to be established. In this case the defendants Matthew Hartley was operating a motor vehicle in a grossly negligent manner, operating a vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of a crash and killed the plaintiff, Mollie Mahowald throwing her 20 or 30 feet in the air. Therefore, the defendant does not owe the plaintiff a legal obligations based off the job/position relationship.
Working towns across the Old West had high homicide rates due to all the gambling, drinking, disorderly conduct. In Annual Homicide Rates per 100,000 people produced by David T. Courtwright in Violent Land, 1996, it shows that Leadville, CO had 105 deaths per 100,000 people while Philadelphia, PA 1860-1880 had 3.2 per 100,000 people. Leadville, CO was a mining town where the first promising mining discovery occurred. Most mining camps had no law enforcement since miners were competing against each other for gold. The intense rivalry frequently led to violence.
However, neither Talker nor Lensman offered such tools of killings, nor did they persuade the action of the deceased. Essentially, it was Doleful himself who decide to pour gasoline on his cloth and light the lighter to generate the fatal flame. The detachment of the job of the crew and the initiation of the fire setting breaks the chain of logic. In State v. Pelham, 824 A.2d 1082 (N.J. 2003), Pelham was convicted second-degree murder because there was no sufficient intervening event that explain the death of the deceased in a new way. Pelham, a reckless drunk driver, fatally hit the deceased and the family members of the deceased stopped ventilation equipment according to the wish of the deceased.
Inmates praise Vickie Lee Roach as she regains their right to vote Roach’s right to vote was infringed due to the 2006 amendments to commonwealth electoral act 1918 (cmwth act) which states that any prisoner serving a full time sentence at any length. The legislation breached her constitutional rights to vote. The constitutional phrase parliament is ‘directly chosen by the people’ implies the right to Australian citizens to vote and states only those that don’t have the mental capacity are exempt, and despite so, Vickie Lee Roach and all prisoners were still denied the right to vote Roach wasn’t pressured into this case by anyone but herself as she has legal standing due to being directly affected by it.
A seemingly uncorrelated death of a child becomes an attack on two businesses that brought forth unwanted attention. It reveals how corporations can truly neglect their surroundings and the safety of citizens without remorse. In the quaint town of Woburn, Massachusetts, the death of Anne Anderson’s son due to leukemia quickly transformed from a personal tragedy to an extensive lawsuit. Anne Anderson approached Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer, to tackle the case. From the beginning, Anne makes it clear that she does not want money, she simply wants an apology.
Key Facts: A moving train collided with a passenger car. The accident killed 2 people riding in the car. Plaintiff, a wife of the decedent, filed the lawsuit against the Railroad Co. Several facts were established, including that a warehouse obstructed the view of both driver and train. It was also established that train was speeding.
In this country, our justice system continually strives to seek restitution and retribution for both the victim and the accused in its entirety. As a country, we have seen many tragic deaths and this one, in particular, struck the hearts of many. Tim Bosma a young, 32-year-old man was struck down on an early morning in May 2013. Bosma set out in hopes of selling his truck to two prospective buyers. Though, what he did not know was that he would never come home to his wife Sharlene and little girl.
The passenger’s family had a lot of questions regarding how their loved ones died. Were they conscious while the plane was coming down? Did they feel anything? Could they have felt anything? (Miller) Before the report was released, the passenger’s families were briefed on what happened.
Accidental death in this case made the grief and suffering worse because of the contrast of this verdict and the findings of the Taylor Inquiry. While, essentially, the blame was placed on their loved ones in the inquests, in the Taylor Inquiry loss of police control was the main factor for the disaster and their deaths. The families reacted to the inquest verdict with anger and frustration. While some were silent when the verdict was read, others disrupted the
According to Article 17(1) of the Montreal Convention 1999 (“MC”), “the carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.” There are thus 3 tenets to the rule that imposes liability on carriers. There must be 1) damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger; 2) an accident that caused the death or injury; 3) it must have occurred while the passenger was on board the aircraft or embarking/disembarking. For purposes of this question, part 3 would be discussed extensively in relation to case law.
Tort of negligence is the failure to act as a reasonable person to exercise the standard of care required by the law and resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. To prove negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant causing the damage was not only the actual cause of damage. He also show that the proximate cause of the damage. Proximity is the legal relationship between the parties from which the law will attribute a duty of care. And to prove negligence the type of the damage that occurred must have been foreseeable.
Many state laws prohibit many reckless behaviors and look upon reckless actors as social dangers because they gamble with other people's safety. A person who has been injured from a civil claim of recklessness of another may recover compensation for any resulting medical expenses, lost wages, rehabilitation, pain, and suffering. In addition, recklessness may also allow recovery from certain people who are typically immune from liability for mere negligence, such as government workers and health care