Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC: Case Study

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

In the case against Sage Rent-A-Car the defendant filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance when it incorporated. Therefore, the court should dismiss the suit against Sage Rent-A-Car for failing to state a claim under rule NMRA 1-012B(6). Also under section 66-5-207(E) (1988) of the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act states, “a motor vehicle approved as a self-insured by the superintendent of insurance is exempt from the act. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for any damages due to filing a surety bond with the New Mexico superintendent and for being self-insured. Lastly, under New Mexico case law Las Lumarias of the N.M Council v. Isengard, 92 N.M 297, 300-301 (Ct. App. 1978) the court held a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff not being able to recover or be entitled to relief under any state of facts provided under the claim. As one can see under the statutes provided and case law the defendant Sage Rent-A-Car is not liable for damages per the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act not constituting negligence due to Sage’s actions when

Negligence under general action is the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a duty, a breach in that duty, causation, and damages in that duty. However, Mississippi is known as a Comparative negligence state. Under MS Law §52:68 which states; In all actions hereafter brought for personal injuries, or where such injuries have resulted in death, or for injury to property, the fact that the person injured,

The Parties in this case are Bob and Sallie Sumerel, Steven and Ann Berzin, Dane and Kerry Dicke, and Bart Kaufman and Good Year Tire & Rubber Company. Bob and Sallie Sumerel, Steven and Ann Berzin, Dane and Kerry Dicke, and Bart Kaufman are all the plaintiffs and appellants since they are suing and also appealing the decision. The Good Year Tire & Rubber Company is the defendant and the appellees since they are being sued and contesting the appeal.

COMES NOW, Defendant the State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”), by and through Mark J. Stiller, Esq., Bryant S. Green, Esq., and Niles, Barton & Wilmer, LLP, and hereby files this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Respond to Discovery pursuant to Md. Rule 3-421(h), and in support thereof, states as follows:

The plaintiff must prove that there was negligence from the defendant’s side, which resulted with the injury and they are to be blamed. Negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury, and whether a legal duty exists is something that needs to be solved within the court. In this case, what needs to be determined is whether the City of Elsewhere and/or Officer Ruthless had a duty to Susie Marks regarding to her riding in the camper of the truck, and if so, to then determine the actual cause of the injuries to Susie. The actual cause refers to what really caused the injuries.

Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted

Lambert’s Café Inc. (“Lambert’s Café”) will be held liable and found negligent for damages sustained by Troy Tucker (“Ms. Tucker”) as a result of food thrown at plaintiff while visiting the establishment. In this case, it was substantiated that the plaintiff was injured by the roll thrown by Ms. Garrett, an employee of Lambert’s Café who was, at the time of injury, working on behalf of the restaurant. The issues to look to then are: Did Lambert’s Café owe Ms. Tucker a duty of reasonable care? If Lambert’s Café did owe plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, was it breached by the throwing of the roll that resulted in permanent injuries sustained by Ms. Tucker?

Case Background: Mendez driving minivan w/ 6 passengers when tire made by Cooper Tire lost its tread. Mendez lost control 4 passengers were killed. Tire was punctured by a nail. Survivors sued Cooper for product defect and jury awarded over $11 million in damages; appeals court affirmed. Cooper appealed

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

The cause of action were noted as motor vehicle and general negligence. Negligence is defined as; “the breach of the duty of all persons, as established by state tort law, to act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings and interactions with others.” (Lau &Johnson, 2014, p. 139). Specifically the filing stated the plaintiff alleges the acts of defendant were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to plaintiff (Judicial Council of California, 1982, form CCP

RULE - Negligence occurs when an entity fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to others. For a valid negligence claim the plaintiff must establish the following elements of proof: duty of care, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, and actual loss or harm. If the defendant can attack any of these elements they may successfully defend the negligence suit. The first element is establishing the presence of a duty of care owed by one party to another.

Four elements must exist to prove there is a valid contract between the chain store and Sam Stevens. These four elements include the agreement, consideration, contractual capacity and legal object. The first element of the agreement would be deemed to exist if one person makes an offer and the other party accepts that offer. In this case, Sam did verbally agreed to send the 1,000 units to the chain store; that element does count toward a contract. The second element of the consideration would be deemed to exist if each party gets something in exchange for their promise under a contract. If Sam and the chain store agreed to what he would get in return for his 1,000 units, this element would be valid. However, this was not mentioned by either side, so the contract would not be valid.

Proximate cause or cause in fact must ordinarily be elements of proof in all personal injury actions. In negligence actions, the plaintiff must establish essentially four elements: 1) duty; 2) Breach of duty; 3) Causation; and 4) Damages. Obviously cause in fact and proximate cause are part of the causation element.

Whether the breach of duty has caused the plaintiff’s injury is the third element of negligence. Requirements for causation are causation in fact and proximate cause. Causation in fact is determined by the “but for” test, which means if it was not for the defendant’s breach of duty, harm or injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause is when the connection between the action (breach of duty) and the injury is strong enough to impose liability. Another issue that needs to be considered is foreseeability because the defendant’s action must have created a foreseeable risk of injury. In this case, the crew of Titanic was navigating the ship during the night at high rate of speed in water with