Business Law: The Case Of Negligence

The question in this case is whether Wilhelm acted negligently by failing to warn Flores of the dangers of working with beehives. The case is as such, Curtis Wilhelm owner of beehives and maintained them on property that he owned. John Black, an operator of a honey business, purchased some beehives from Wilhelm. Black employed Santos Flores Sr. to pick up the purchase of beehives from Wilhelm. Neither Black nor Wilhelm informed Flores of the dangers of working around bees. Black provided Flores with a protective suit to wear around the beehives. (Cheeseman, 2013)

Pete’s injury is considered a non-criminal matter. I have recently been assigned his lawyer and we are trying to use the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) method or civil litigation route to resolve the legal matters. After reviewing his case, he has sustained injuries from driving his four-wheeled all-terrain vehicle (ATV) when it rolled over on a trail behind his home. Due to his injuries, he has been out of work and has medical expenses. He is suing the manufacturer for the ATV being defective.

Currently, there is a lawsuit pending in Vigo Superior Court which is alleging that negligence by a property owner contributed to the death of three people. These deaths were a result of a fire which engulfed a rental property. The lawsuit claims that both the property owner and the property agent had failed to ensure that there were functional smoke detectors installed within the home. This home was occupied by Kayla Lewis, her daughter Gabrielle, and her stepbrother Jeremiah. Gabrielle age 2, was pronounced dead at the scene amongst the early morning fire at the home. Jeremiah age 5, was transported from the scene but later died at the hospital. Gabrielle's sister Chloe age 3, and her mother Kayla were both hospitalized due to injuries sustained in the fire. Kayla made it to the hospital, but later died.

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

Neil Rekun was killed while riding a motorcycle as he was hit by Carl Pelaez. According to Judge Raup, Rekun was 60% negligent and Pelaez was 40% negligent. “Under Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Act, a plaintiff cannot recover if he or she is more than 50% negligent” (238). In the arbitrary agreement between the two parties, they use the term “comparative fault” which did not include a bar on recovery if a plaintiff was more than 50%

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

These are the factual and the proximate cause of the events case scenario. Despite the fact that Candie Cardigan falling off the runway was the cause of Myra’s nose and facial injuries, she was the indirect and unforeseeable future cause for the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant is therefore not legally responsible for the damages of which the plaintiff claims as a negligent act. (Mitchell v. Gonzales, 1991).

In the state of Minnesota it is a landlord’s duty “that the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.” Minn. Stat. 504B.161, subd. 1(1) (2015). Many negligence cases have interpreted this law in different ways that rely on the specific conditions during the time of the incident, and if the event was reasonably foreseeable and preventable. The foreseeability of an event can be determined within a reasonable amount of care for the premises. Frye v. Huntington Point Apartment Bldg., A05-2356, 2006 WL 1704234, 2 (Minn. Ct. App, 2006). Part of the reasonable care includes a duty to inspect, repair, and inform tenants of dangers. Id. In order to win, one must prove all four elements of a negligence claim: one, did the landlord have a duty to uphold; two, did the landlord violate that duty; three, was someone injured; four, did the violation of the duty cause the injury. Id. In regards to negligence claims that involve lighting, the key factor that needs to be proven is whether or not the plaintiff could reasonably see what they were doing. Namchek v. Tulley, 259 Minn. 469, 107 N.W.2d 856, 472 (1961). As well accumulations of water on stairways are dangerous and if resulting from landlord negligence are the basis for a claim. Frye v. Huntington Point Apartment Bldg., A05-2356, 2006

The journal article, “INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR BUSINESS TORT CLAIMS ALLEGING INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING” was published to show the rights that insurance companies have regarding denying people coverage. Sectors thesis statement is as follows, “Like the punter who kicks the ball too far, the business litigation plaintiff sometimes pleads or proves that the defendant was not merely negligent, but reckless, intentional, or malicious” (Spector, 2015. Para. 2). One example used by Larry Spector, the author, is about a kicker on a football team. If the insurance company finds an incident where the insured persons has been negligent then the company can “out kick” the coverage that they first quoted the individual with (Spector, 2015). The two main points of the article are, public policy

If there is a defect in a ride that causes injury, the manufacturer or seller of the ride may be liable under product liability laws. These are strict liability laws that impose responsibility whenever the ride causes harm when used as intended. A plaintiff in a product liability case would not have to prove the ride manufacturer was negligent to recover compensation.

The issue is whether Adam has a chance of taking legal action against Simon for negligence that caused injuries to Simon after being hit by the batting helmet. This is after Simon threw the helmet on the ground and it bounced back hitting Adam on the side of the head causing injury.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.

The purpose of this memo will be to examine and provide an overview of the legal principles for negligence and liability. Negligence is “behaviour or actions that fall below an expected of care”, and liability refers to the responsibility for the injury or harm1. For behaviour to be found negligent four elements need to be met and proven: duty of care, standard of care, damages and proximate cause1. This memo will describe the elements of negligence, liability, including vicarious liability and occupier’s liability, and the concepts of risk management.

Tort is a wrong. The law provides remedies to persons or businesses that are injured by the tortious actions of others (Cheeseman, 2014, p. 115). In the law of tort, there are two parties, including plaintiff and defendant. Usually, the plaintiff is a person directly affected either emotionally or physically by the incident because of the defendant’s actions while the defendant is the individual who injured the plaintiff (Staver Law Group). In this case, Mr. Speed is the defendant due to his behavior resulting to Ms. Smith, the plaintiff, who got injured. Moreover, he must be taken against by his actions in a court of law. In a tort action, there are three elements established. First, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular action. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant breached this duty by failing to conform his or her behavior accordingly. Third, the plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant’s breach (Lehman & Phelps, 2005, p. 57).

On a TV program named Toffee with Taran broadcasted on Boom TV, a celebrated name Sania Radukone created an impression communicating her views on her peers. This piece of recording was discarded from the telecasted show however by one means or another was spilled out onto YouTube and went viral on social networking sites. The feature was posted by an account named Kamaal Dhamal Khan. On witnessing this video one of Saina’s contemporaries, Safreena Kaif felt profoundly offended as the views were insinuated towards her which she found to be defamatory. Safreena thinks of filing a case against Saina Radukone, Boom TV and Kamaal Dhamal Khan.