Arlington V. Metroplex Case Study

Grocery Depot Inc. has hired the McAfee law firm, to defend the store in this personal liability claim. McAfees’

Facts: Stephen R. Newton (Newton) was an employee of Henderson City as a police officer. Newton had been assigned to the DEA in October 1987 until he resigned in 1991. Newton claims he was not compensated for all the overtime hours he worked as a Task Force Officer. The city of Henderson entered an agreement with the DEA to remain Newton’s employer consequently rendering them responsible for “establishing the salary benefits including overtime of the Henderson Police Department officer assigned to the Task Force, and making all payments due.” Prior to 1990, Newton had not received authority from the City to work any overtime.

Although the petitioner, UTA cited primarily subsection (L) of the recreational statute as a catch all, the court found it is not intended to protect school organized sports just because they occur outdoors. The intent is for activities commonly associated with the enjoyment of nature while outdoors on private property. This encourages private owners to allow citizens on their land for the purposes of recreational activities like fishing, camping, canoeing or bicycling. This provides a level of immunity for the landowner to encourage them to allow use of their property by protecting them from ordinary negligence claims associated with recreational

After taking into account the facts and the laws applicable to the case of Mr. Newhouse, the issue of whether Lion’s Paint Store owed Mr. Newhouse any duty of care; it is clear that under Michigan law governing premises liability, the highest of care is owed to an invitee who enters upon a premises by either expressed or implied invitation for the purpose of commercial benefit to the premises owner. The slip and fall incident resulting in Mr. Newhouse sustaining injuries falls under a breach of legal duty by Lion’s Paint Store to ensure the safety of invitees from unreasonable risk of harm therefore, the paint store is liable for negligence on their part by failure to inspect the premises at reasonable times to determine circumstances that

The action of conduct of the railroad guard is not considered a wrong or invasion of protected interest to the plaintiff because the wrong by the defendant was caused to the man who rushed to catch the train. What the plaintiff must show is a wrong to herself and not a wrong to someone else; therefore since the wrong is not caused to her, the company cannot be liable for negligence. In addition, the man was not injured or put into danger; instead the action of the railroad guard was to safe the man from falling. Therefore, the only wrong caused was a violation to a property interest (the safety of his package). In brief the plaintiff was suing the company for the wrongs caused to the package owner since she did not suffer any wrong. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. Proof of negligence in the air will not do.

III. Does Mark Gable’s family has a cause of action and can have a recovery under premises liability because dangerous conditions occurred?

The area in private law which is involved includes tort law of negligence. This case involves the alleged perpetrator (Woolworths) exploiting and interfering with the rights of the alleged victim and also failing to fulfill their duty of care towards the customer, in this case Kathryn Strong. Tort law of negligence entitles the alleged victim to take legal action against the alleged perpetrator which was successfully met in the Strong v Woolworths Ltd as woolworths failed to provide an adequate cleaning system to recognise any spillages resulting in Woolworths being accused guilty of negligence.

Contributory Negligence? Did the plaintiff Ms. Smith contribute to her own harm when she did not hear or heed the warning of store employee Robin Jones?

This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.

The following case involves the Plaintiff Raul Sanchez, the defendant and third party plaintiff, Rental Service Corporation and Paul’s welding Service Inc. the defendant. Raul Sanchez a construction worker was injured on the job in September 2001, while working for Paul 's Welding Service. During his shift, a scissor lift rented from Rental Service Corporation failed. Sanchez was working that day as a pusher, which is the man who pushes columns into place as steel beams overhead are also placed. When the scissor lift bumped into one of the beams, the beam went straight down and hit Sanchez. The injuries he received involved his head, neck and jaw. Sanchez filed a Workers ' Compensation Claim against Paul’s welding Service Inc. and was paid benefits to action of the Illinois Industrial Commission of $102,994.63 for medical expenses plus $42,024.08 for Temporary Total Disability equaling $145,018.71. This amount was paid on behalf of Paul’s welding Service Inc. from its Workers ' Compensation Insurance Carrier, Legion Indemnity (Legion).

Facts: A passenger, carrying a box of fireworks, was helped onto a moving train by two employees of The Long Island Railroad Company. The box of fireworks dropped during this action and caused an explosion that severely injured the plaintiff, who had been standing at the passenger station platform, waiting for her train. The railroad company argued the accident was not caused by their negligence.

Facts: Ford Motor Company appealed the judgement of the Hampton County, South Carolina Circuit Court in a product liability claim. Cheryl Hale was driving several children to her house in her Ford Bronco. The Plaintiff Jesse Branham was riding in the backseat without wearing his seatbelt. Hale admitted that she took her eyes briefly off the road, and Bronco veered towards the side of the road, where the rear right wheel left the road. When Hale attempted to correct, she overcorrected and the Bronco rolled over. In the process of the roll over, Branham was ejected from the vehicle and sustained injuries. The case against Ford was based on two product liability claims, one a defective seatbelt sleeve claim and the other, a “handling and

Sara Sweet came into our office seeking counsel on an action for negligence involving an automobile accident she was involved in several weeks ago. On the day of the accident Sara was driving home around 4:00 p.m., as she was driving through an intersection on a green light she was T-boned by a truck that had run a red light. The truck is owned by Big Bucks, Int’l and was being driven by employee Billy Bob Jones who had been drinking and was DUI at the time of the accident. The police report also shows that Ms. Sweet was likely driving over the speed limit at the time of the accident. The accident left Ms. Sweet with physical injuries including two broken ribs, a collapsed lung, broken nose, ruptured spleen, several severe bruises, and a big gash on her forehead. The injuries sustained by Ms. Sweet required her to undergo surgery and the large gash on her head has caused her to have seizures and severe headaches. Ms. Sweet’s injuries have made it impossible for her to drive for six months and have prevented her from working since the accident. She has used up all of her sick leave and is no longer earning income, she fears losing her job. Ms. Sweet is also left without a vehicle because the accident totaled her 2010 Toyota Camry.

The given fact is concerned about the intentional tort of false imprisonment of Donna (D), intrusion and vicarious liability to establish liability against the store. The answer will also discuss possible damages for D.

In Clarke v Army and navy Cooperative Society ltd (1903) 1 K.B 155 , the plaintiff purchased a tin of chlorinated lime from the defendant’s store When the plaintiff tried to open it in the usual way by pressing the lid off with a spoon the content flew on to her face and injured her eyes. The defendants knew of this danger but negligently omitted to warn the plaintiff about that . The defendants were held liable in tort towards her.