Case Study: Longman V. Food Lion

The plaintiff in Ard v. East Jefferson General Hospital, stated on 20 May, she had rang the nurses station to inform the nursing staff that her husband was experiencing symptoms of nausea, pain, and shortness of breathe. After ringing the call button for several times her spouse received his medication. Mrs. Ard noticed that her husband continued to have difficulty breathing and ringing from side to side, the patient spouse rang the nursing station for approximately an hour and twenty-five minutes until the defendant (Ms. Florscheim) enter the room and initiated a code blue, which Mr. Ard didn’t recover. The expert witness testified that the defendant failed to provide the standard of care concerning the decease and should have read the physician’s progress notes stating patient is high risk upon assessment and observation. The defendant testified she checked on the patient but no documentation was noted. The defendant expert witness disagrees with breech of duty, which upon cross-examination the expert witness agrees with the breech of duty. The district judge, upon judgment, the defendant failed to provide the standard of care (Pozgar, 2012, p. 215-216) and award the plaintiff for damages from $50,000 to $150,000 (Pozgar, 2012, p. 242).

Liebeck v. McDonald’s, also known as the McDonald’s Coffee Case, is a 1994 product liability lawsuit. This lawsuit became one of the most famous in the US history because after the court’s awarded Stella Liebeck $2.9 million, after she was severely burned by the coffee she brought from McDonald, there were debates over tort reform in the US.

The facts of this case are that Dr. Guiles who is self-conscious of his prostate cancer diagnosis is treated horrendously when he finally decides to have surgery ( Buchbinder, Shanks & Buchbinder, 2014). Considering that Dr. Guiles is already sensitive about his condition, his unbearable symptoms are not helping matters (Buchbinder et al, 2014). Upon arrival at the hospital, he is treated subpar. The admitting clerk is rude and unbecoming to a patient who isn’t feeling well and who is embarrassed about his sickness (Buchbinder et al., 2014). To make matters worse, he has to find his own way up to the floor by walking, which causes him to be even later in checking in because of the need to stop frequently to urinate as well as having difficulty in walking (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Once he arrives on the floor, the charge nurse is not welcoming and unprofessional (Buchbinder et al., 2014). After figuring out what to do with the paperwork; and the nurse aide delivers Dr. Guiles to his room, the nurse aide does not offer to help settle him in (Buchbinder et al., 2014). Therefore, Dr. Guiles is faced with battling obnoxious family members who are on his bed and to make matters worse someone is in the bathroom which doesn’t help his need of having to frequently urinate (Buchbinder et al., 2014). When the issues are brought up to the charge nurse, the charge nurse accuses Dr. Guiles of wanting preferential treatment

In many ways, the hospital system in America is set up mirroring our government. They are similar in the way that checks and balances have been set in place to ensure the best possible care is delivered to patients. With these checks and balances there are three main bodies; the governing board, medical staff, and executive management (Showalter, 2017). The duties and responsibilities of each body many times is to oversee and continually check the others. A prime example of this system can be seen through the case of Moore v. The Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, which took place in Nevada and was heard before the Supreme Court of the state in 1972 (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972). Specifically, in this case, the duty of the governing board to “exercise reasonable care in selecting and retaining medical staff” is questioned in contrast with the right of the physician to have “due process… when disciplinary action is taken” (Showalter, 2017). In hopes of changing a decision by the governing board, and attempting to reverse the decision of a lower court, the appellant, Dr. Moore, brought the case against Carson-Tahoe Hospital (Moore v. Board of Trustees of Carson-Tahoe Hospital, 1972).

In determining whether a genuine issue of the material fact whether a genuine issue of material fact occurs regarding the reasonableness of the requested accommodation, we first examine whether Turners facial presenting that her proposed accommodation is possible. If appellant has made out a prima facie showing, the load then shifts to prove a favorable defense, that the accommodations requested by Turner are unreasonable or would cause an undue hardship on the employer. In contrast, If Turner has satisfied her initial burden, Turners proposed accommodation seems practical. At this time, Hershey rotations policy is new one which had never been required of employees in Turners position. If Turner's proposed accommodation would permit the new rotation program to endure, even though on a modified basis. Under Turners proposed accommodation, each inspector could continue to rotate on the hourly basis, with Turners, herself, rotating only between line 8 and 9. Hershey has not put up with that because this is not practical or

Furman v. Georgia was a murder was committed at August 11, 1967. Mr. William Henry Furman was a poor man that dropped out of school at the sixth grade. He was a 26 year old man without a job living on the streets with the intent of commenting theft. The suspect came into the home of and William Micke in Savanah, Georgia, and started to break everything looking for valuables to steal. While rummaging through the house William Micke surprised Furman and he took off running. While attempting to escape the house he accidently (according to him) dropped the gun and killed the unknown house owner.

On a beautiful day in 1965, June 4th, President Lyndon B Johnson spoke at the commencement at the prestigious Howard University commencement. He can be quoted saying “ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race saying ‘ you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair.”(ECS1) Shortly after giving this address President Johnson, “Put his money where his mouth was” and signed executive orders mandating that all government contractors take “affirmative action” to hire minority groups (Brunner 2002). In responses to this many professional schools, colleges and university’s followed the governments

The Furman v. Georgia case has set a precedent on how the courts deal with the disputable issue that is capital punishment because it was the first time the Supreme Court addressed the problem. Both racism and the morality of the death penalty have been relatively controversial issues in the United States for several years. The Furman v. Georgia case conjoined both matters. The case declared that if capital punishment were to be used, it was going to be used for all the right reasons, not due to any prejudices or discrimination by reason of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Additionally, the case placed a moratorium on the death penalty because it was argued that the application of Furman’s sentencing would be an example of “cruel and unusual

Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight

The Plaintiffs felt that since the hospital was licensed and accredited that they should be held responsible for their employees and their actions. It states in the regulations that any infraction of the bylaws imposes liability for the injury. At any time if Dr. Alexander had questions or concerns he could have reached out to an expert in this field to consult

Grutter v. Bollinger Grutter v. Bollinger was a very influential case for race relations in public colleges across America. The case involved Barbara Grutter and her dispute with the University of Michigan. She was denied acceptance to the university despite her above average LSAT scores and GPA. However, the university claimed the school looks at the overall character of the applicant and “family hardships, travel, language fluency, community service, etc” ("Grutter v. Bollinger").

In order to examine my question thoroughly, I would need the court documents written on both The Slaughterhouse Cases (1872) and Williams v. Mississippi (1872). I would also need legal scholarly reviews about the ramifications and motivations of the cases. I would need primary sources of information from newspapers and articles from the time period to gage public opinion about the decisions. This may shed light onto the Justice’s mindsets during ruling. (For example, did the public opinion differ in the case of white butchers invoking the 14th amendment in comparison to a black man on trial for murder as in Williams v. Mississippi (1872)? Would public opinion sway the judges?) I would also desire information about the specific Supreme Court

Representatives have approached breeder’s Own Pet Foods, Inc. from Marketing Momentum Unlimited, a marketing and advertising consulting firm. The reason for the meeting was to discuss the company’s possible entry into the retail branded dog food market in the Boston market.

The company needs to evaluate who comprises its target market. Is the market the entire dog food market? The 10 percent that is currently purchasing frozen food or the 15% that would purchase if it were more convenient to do so? Currently consumers do not associate dog food with frozen food; but even if they did, the product may still not appeal to the average consumer due to time requirements for its preparation and thawing.

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.