Differences And Weaknesses Of The Party 's Claims, Counterclaims, And / Or Defenses And Affirmative Defenses

The plaintiff was a student of his class and the defendant evidence was that he was unaware of the firing of pellets but the if he had had been aware he would have without a doubt taken the actions to shut it down and stop the pellets being shot across the class room. If the defendant had taken actions to stop the students from doing these actions the chain of causations would have been avoided and the student wouldn’t have been struck in the eye by a paper pellet. A case related to this Johns v Minister of Education, Chinner and Beck (1981) 28 SASR 206 the defendant was being sued for negligence. The case was the defendant who had been teaching a class when she had become aware of two boys using catapults to fire ballpoint pens. The defendant told the students to throw the catapults in the bin and later in that lesson she was not aware that a student had retained a catapult and the plaintiff was struck in the eye when a ballpoint pen was discharged by a catapult. In this case the teacher cannot be found negligence because she had told all students to throw out the catapults and to her knowledge they had and so in comparison to the first case the teacher was not adequately supervising the class and had not stopped the students from shooting paper pellets across the

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 your report you mentioned there was smashed banana on the plaintiffs foot, did you also notice banana on the floor or on the mats? Furthermore, why did the banana display not have mats or carpet completely around it? The answer to this question would establish if there was banana on the floor and why the store only put slip mats in front and carpet behind the display. In addition, this question establishes the store did not safe guard the sides of the display.

Defendant: The Defendant argued that she had no knowledge of her husband selling drugs on her property, nor did she consent to it; and that his history of violence had her under duress.

But the law has evolved to where the seller has to disclose material, latent defects that they are aware of pertaining to the home that is being sold. Failure to disclose defects is a part of the evolution of the law. Under failure to disclose, if the seller is found o have known about a material defect, not disclosed the defect, and the buyer relies on the seller’s word to their detriment, the seller is found to be liable to failure to disclose. For example, in Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d. 625, the Johnson’s know of the leaky roof in the home that they were selling to the Davises, but the represented the home as if there were no defects. The Courts rules in the Davises favor because the Johnsons had a duty to disclose defects that are material so that the buyer will not rely detrimentally on them. The same rule applies in the Powell v. Knox case. The current case distinguishes from the Johnson v. Davis case because Mr. Knox testified that he had no knowledge of the contaminated soil in the backyard, because he and his late wife never attempted to plant veggie only flowers. He also testified that his hearing is not that best, which prohibited him from hearing the parties across the street. The jury found that Mr. Knox was not had liable for failure to disclose due to Mr. Knox not having prior knowledge of the defects and the Powells willingness to overlook the issue for the chandelier in Mr. Knox’s

In the case, Ryan v. Friesenhahn, the plaintiffs are Sandra and Stephen Ryan who are suing the defendants, Nancy and Frederick Friesenhahn. Nancy and Frederick’s son, Todd Friesenhahn, provided an “open invitation” to a party hosted at the Friesenhahn’s household that included a “bring your own bottle” invitation. Sandra and Stephen Ryan’s daughter, Sabrina, was in attendance at the Friesenhahn’s residence during the “open invitation” party. During the time that Sabrina was at the household, she became intoxicated. Sabrina Ryan operated a motor vehicle upon leaving the Friesenhahn’s property intoxicated and was then involved in a fatal accident.

Plaintiff Brian Martin attended a high school graduation party hosted by Defendant Lee Martin. The majority of guests were between the ages of seventeen and twenty. There were two kegs of beer available at the party, as well as other alcohol provided by the guests. One guest, Matthew Marciano, had a history with Mr. Martin. During the party, a fight ensued between Marciano and the plaintiff’s friends. Marciano left the property, but later returned with Chijoke Okere, who was carrying a baseball bat. Okere struck Mr. Martin on the head. The defendant went inside her house and locked the door, refusing entry to those who were trying to help the plaintiff. Mr. Martin suffered considerable brain damage from the injury.

The plaintiff, James Davis Rowland, Jr., was a guest in the apartment of the defendant, Nancy Christian. The plaintiff requested to use the bathroom, where he injured his hand on a broken water faucet handle. Although the defendant had complained to the landlord about the broken handle, she did not warn the plaintiff.

Now comes the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Statesville HMA Medical Group, LLC (“Clinic”) answering the remaining amended counterclaims of Defendant/Counterclaimant Elmer H. Stout, III, M.D. (“Dr. Stout”) following entry of the Court’s July 14, 2016 Order dismissing Counts 5, 6, and 7 in their entirety, and all of Count IV except for Paragraph 37(h). Per the Court’s August 3, 2016 Order Granting Extension of Time, this Answer is timely filed.

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 Applicant/Claimant, Mr. Cleveland Edwards, is the father of the Defendant/ Respondent, Mr. Clive Edwards. The subject matter of the dispute is a property that both parties are registered owners as joint tenants. The Claimant maintains that he is the legal and equitable owner of the property because the Defendant’s name was only on the Title for convenience and this was clearly conveyed to the Defendant prior to his name being placed on the title. The Claimant wishes to sell the property and the Defendant does not oppose. However the Defendant wants the proceeds of the sales to be apportioned having regards to his interest in the property.

The slip and fall injury undisputedly satisfies some of the elements required by the statute: subsections (b), (d), and (e) are met. First, Burov knew that the hot tub on his property created an unreasonable risk because he is a mathematics graduate student and recognized that children can drown or get seriously injured when using the hot tub. Second, the burden on Burov to lock a four-person hot tub with a wooden cover was slight in comparison to the coma and possibly permanent injuries Gaad sustained. Finally, Burov failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate danger when he left the hot tub unlocked and covered it with a thermal blanket instead of locking it with the appropriate wooden cover. To determine Burov's liability, two elements

In order to completely understand the liability in negligence, there must be reasonable foreseeability present which includes three main “elements of negligence” They are Duty of Care, Breach of Duty and Remoteness of Damage (pg436-437 (8.220) Terry and Giugni) In addition the plaintiff must also satisfy the four traditional elements of negligence in order to have a claim; (pg 431 (8.140) Terry and Giugni)

Defendant’s request to exclude evidence of the photo of the swing set should be denied. Plaintiff intends to introduce the evidence to show that this is the very swing set where Plaintiff was hurt and that this location is commonly visited by children of the like age around the same time of the day when Plaintiff was injured. The photo of not only the swing set itself, but also of the playground with actual children playing in it is more probative than prejudicial because it depicts the scene of the accident more similar to that on the day of the accident. Accordingly, it is offered to help the jury evaluate the situation in totality and that the need of special standard of care for young children is to be observed by a reasonable person. Thus,

The injured employee believes the Company is at fault for his injury because the company failed to ensure that the equipment he was required to use to perform his job was as not safe. His opinion is reasonable if the company knew that a design flaw existed and ignored it. No evidence has been provided that supports the claim that the Company or the shop foreman knowingly allowed unsafe equipment to be used in the