Case Analysis : Hawkins V. Mcgee

I believe that the hospital should take the blame for the damages and suffering that Kelly Niles endured. This decision reflects the quality of care that Niles received while he was at the hospital and also correlates to his physical status. The neurosurgeons stated that his status would have been better if they got to him sooner and were able to treat him in time, but due to the negligence throughout his whole treatment he is left with the ability to only move his eyes and neck. The fact that there was doubt that Kelly would survive the next few days after his surgery supports my decision that what the court ruled was reasonable and appropriate. Kelly “remained in a coma for 46 days before gradually regaining consciousness.” Kelly is totally disabled and his condition can’t ever be improved with medical attention or surgical treatments which furthers my final decision (“Niles v. City of San Rafael,”

Within the United States Constitution as it Pertained to the Dred Scott Case of 1856

The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the three Amendment made after the Civil War. It granted African-Americans the right to citizenship in the United States of America. This Amendment is made up of five parts. Starting with the first part, no one can be robbed of their property, life, or liberty and legally everyone has equal protection. This part of the amendment applies to citizens unless a law or trial is present to overturn those rights. The second part is Representatives in Congress are determined based on the number of people living in the states. The third part focuses on preventing anyone working in the government to be allowed to participate in insurrection or a rebellion against the United States. In part four of

With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

Terry v. Ohio was a pivotal case for the Fourth Amendment and for the citizens of the United States of America. As referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in nineteen sixty three an off duty detective in Cleveland, Ohio stopped and frisked two African American men and one white man based on a ‘reasonable suspicion that the men were about to commit a crime’ (ACLUOhio, 2014). The ruling of this case has set in motion the gross abuse of stop and frisks in minority communities and among minority races in the twenty-first century; ultimately racial profiling in a post-racial era.

Along with protests, many people went to trials discussing what was legal, what was an injustice, and many other complaints regarding the issue of slavery. One particular case was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in many places with his owner. Shortly before his owner, Peter Blow’s death, Scott and his owner, moved back to slave territory (OI). Blow sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson just before he died. After working with Emerson, they moved to Illinois, a free state, where they stayed for many years (OI). They then moved farther up North the Mississippi River, where Scott even got married (OI). The Scotts moved back and forth betwixt different states, both free and slaves; Scott’s wife had her child in Fort Snelling

The instance of Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, honest to goodness case in which the U.S. Superior Court on March 6, 1857, decided that a slave who had stayed in a free state and area was not thusly fit the bill for his adaptability; that African Americans were not and could never be subjects of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise, which had declared free all areas west of Missouri and north of degree, was unlawful. The decision added fuel to the sectional dispute and drove the country closer to regular war.

After the end of the Civil War, the state of Georgia believed they deserved 35 million acres of land, so they claimed those 35 million acres of land from the Yazoo river which belong to the Native Americans. So basically, the land was kind of stolen. In the year 1795, the state legislator for Georgia sold those 35 million acre of state land to 4 private land companies for the price of 1.5 cent per acre. In 1796, a new legislator for Georgia found out that the previous legislators of Georgia who voted to sell parcels of the 35 million acres of land were stockholders in the companies that sold the land. The legislator also discovered that they were bribed in helping to re-sell the land for a higher amount while committing fraud and corruption.

Bound v. Smith was a North Carolina case that was filed by three (3) inmates against state administrators under section 1983,1. The facts of the case alleged that the inmates has been deprived of access to the courts in violation of their fourteen (14th) amendment rights by the state’s failure to provide legal research facilities (Shaw, 1978).

Cal was a victim to several negligible acts that resulted in the loss of his legs. On the day in question Cal was a passenger in Abe’s car when it was in a collision with Deb’s vehicle. Although he only sustained minor injuries due to the initial impact, another negligible driver, Ann struck both cars causing Cal more traumatic injuries. Once Cal was at the hospital he was informed that he required a surgery to possibly save his legs, but was never explained the requirements or risks involved if the surgery was successful. He unknowingly consented to the surgery which was an unsuccessful, resulting in the loss of use of both of his legs. After the surgery Cal experienced indescribable amounts of pain and suffering, upon returning to the doctor it was discovered one of the surgeons had left a metal clamp inside Cal’s leg and sewed him up, which required additional surgery for its removal. Based on these facts, Cal has many legal rights to recover damages by those liable for his injuries.

Darling sued the Charleston Community Memorial Hospital for negligence of treatment. The courts did find that negligence did happen during the treatment of Darling at the hospital, and he was awarded compensation for his damages.

The Plaintiffs, family of the decedent plaintiff, Barbara J. O’Neil, filed a wrongful death complaint due to mesothelioma against the defendant manufacturers, Crane Co. et al., in concerns of valves and pumps manufactured for use on Navy warships. This particular claim raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent

The article “A Plea to North Carolina: Bringing fairness to the Assessment of Civil Battery Liability for Defendants with Cognitive Disabilities” discusses how individuals with cognitive disabilities should be held liable for their actions. When mentally insane people intentionally attack people, they should be charged for their misdemeanors. Even when successfully pleading insane in a courtroom, they may not have their charges dropped. Chriscoe uses the example regarding the case of Mcguire Vs Almy, where a registered nurse sued one of her patients that attacked her. Even though he was insane, he still had the intent of trying to harm her. Due to this fact, the court ruled that he was liable for his actions. In many cases, courts have to prove

At trial court, the judge deliberated that Dr. Scott was negligent for failing to show that the growth might not have been benign. The judge ruled the defendant was a breach of duty.