Com Vs Vonberg Case Study

Details of incident: Defendant and his friend went to the same store where he was arrested previously for shoplifting. He threw a beverage to the security’s face and slapped him. Defendant got really angry when he saw the security. Defendant thinks he was responsible for his arrest in the past because the security caught him for shoplifting. As the defendant is

In deadly crimes, the type of weapon used has no effect on the fact that someone is still dead in the end. Many people have access to weapons, but few will ever actually use

According to Merriam-Webster, a weapon is: something (such as a gun, knife, club, or bomb) that is used for fighting or attacking someone or for defending yourself when someone is attacking you. Weapons have been used for thousands of years, since the creation of man. However, its use was limited to only hunting and defending against large predatory animals. As time passed, man 's knowledge of weaponry expanded beyond a simple club and transformed into guns. Prior to the 1850s, Americans owned guns though none were used to inflict violence upon another person. “As a result, guns contributed little to the homicide rate, which was low everywhere, even in the South and on the frontier, where historians once assumed guns and murder went

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

Aloe could argue that the cause of death of his wife is due to the defective and unreasonably dangerous product that Toys R Us knowingly sold in the market. The regulation

Many of the problems that Carl has found concerning the new employee orientation could have been avoided. Carl is a recently hired employee himself. He should have kept up with the progress of the new employee orientation and checked on the files for the applicants. ABC, Inc. should also have made sure that their new employee was capable of doing his job efficiently. If Carl had stayed on top of his project, the problems that he faced would not have occurred.

B. Battery. A battery is a volitional act by the defendant which intentionally causes the

6. Holding: As stated in the case: “one who, without a privilege to do so, by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another, with bodily harm resulting from such distress, is subject to liability for such emotional distress and bodily harm even though he has committed no heretofore recognized common law tort.”

clause (ii), and it is simply too unlike the provision's listed examples for the Court to believe that Congress intended the provision to cover it. In the Courts opinion In our view, the provision's listed examples— burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives—illustrate the kinds of crimes that fall within the statute's scope. Their presence indicated that the statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). If Congress meant the statute to be all encompassing, it is

The Patrick Haynes case involves the violation of reasonable care, after being assaulted by three correction officers that caused intentional trauma and injuries to his rectum area. The details of the case are that inmate Patrick Haynes assaulted a correction officer after being written up for misconduct. Inmate Patrick Haynes assaulted the correction officer by throwing feces and urine in the unsuspecting officer’s face. Later that night after lights out, the three correction officers went to his cell, restrained him and forcibly inserted a broom stick into his rectum. The next morning he was found by day shift officers and transported to the infirmary. Patrick Haynes after receiving medical care sued with judgement being found in his favor.

In November 1960, Dorrence Darling II, a minor (Plaintiff) was brought in to the Charleston Community Memorial Hospital (Defendant) by his father, after breaking his leg during a football game. The on call Physician, Dr. Alexander (Defendant) tended to Darling in the emergency room. Dr. Alexander began by putting the leg in traction, setting the break, and applied a plaster cast. The next day Darling's toes had become dark, swollen and cold to the touch. Darling was in a great deal of pain and voiced this to the Dr. and attending nursing staff. Dr. Alexander made some adjustments to the cast around the toes to relieve some of the pressure.

Since June 1973, Sandra J. Pevsner has been a manager for the Sakowitz Yves St. Laurent Rive Gauche Boutique located in Dallas, Texas. The Boutique sells highly fashionable and expensive clothing and accessories designed by Yves St. Laurent (YSL). Mrs. Pevsner is expected by her employer to wear YSL clothes and apparels at work as well as project an exclusive lifestyle and be aware of YSL current fashion trends. Furthermore, she wears YSL apparel while commuting to and from work, to fashion shows, and business luncheons; where she represents the boutique. In 1975, Mrs. Pevsner purchased clothing and accessories at an employee discount for a total of $1381.91 with the following sum $240 for maintenance cost. Mrs. Pevsner and her husband are partially disabled due to a heart attack in 1971, which has limited her social activities and lead a simple life. In 1975, she filed a joint federal income tax return; which she deducted $990 of ordinary and business expenses along with her purchase of YSL clothing and accessories. However, she claimed

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

A domestic violence abuser may use items or weapons such as a lit cigarette to burn their victim to escalating further with using of a firearm, etc. There are many ways people can purchase guns and use them with the intent to harm another person. There are many “loopholes” within both federal and state laws regarding gun ownership and domestic violence perpetrators. As a result, there are several Florida legal loopholes in gun ownership that may enable some abusers have access to securing a firearm regardless of a conviction of domestic violence through misdemeanors, like stalking (Smartgunlaws.org, 2014), for example. Additionally, there are no clear laws that require an abuser who is convicted of domestic violence to surrender all firearms