Disadvantages Of Waiver Release

The plaintiff Gary O’Brien arrived uninvited at the Henry home and dove into an above-ground pool manufactured by Muskin Corp., the defendant. As O’Brien’s outstretched hands hit the slippery vinyl-lined pool bottom, they slid apart, and his head struck on the bottom of the pool, sustaining injuries. At one time the outer wall of the pool bore the manufacturer’s logo and below it a decal that warned “DO NOT DIVE” roughly one-half inch high. O’Brien sued Muskin for strict product liability citing both design defect and inadequate warning. Both parties produced expert witnesses debating the use of vinyl as the lining material of the pool. O’Brien’s expert testified that wet vinyl was more than twice as slippery as rubber latex, which is

We write today to present you with a demand for settlement and the supporting documentation for our demand. As you know, we represent Ms. Betty Brath in the matter of a grievous injury she suffered due to the negligence of your insured. Ms. Brath has reached maximum medical improvement but unfortunately will never fully recover. We are able to calculate her past and future medical expenses at approximately $34,177.73. Her general damages at trial will be approximately $170,000.00. We therefore demand payment in the amount of $204,177.73. We elaborate on this demand below.

Facts: This case was filed by Brian Kopeikin against Moonlight Basin alleging that Moonlight Basin did not fulfill its duty of reasonable care. On the day of the incident, conditions on the mountain were perfect. The skies were clear, there was little to no wind, and the snow was powder. Mr. Kopeikin, a “very experienced skier” (p.2), was skiing Upper Elkhorn when he came upon unmarked and unnatural hazards. These hazards allegedly were the result of negligent acts by Moonlight. The ski run, Upper Elkhorn, intersected an unmarked and unnamed cat track that was lined with boulders. The cat track was designed in a way that did not allow Kopeikin to see the hazardous boulder field ahead of him. The boulder field spanned over fifty feet and was, “comprised of large, craggy, and sharp rocks” (p.3). It is important to note that this boulder field was allegedly unnatural and resulted because of the way Moonlight graded the cat track. It also needs to be acknowledged that there was no warning to skiers that they were coming up on a hazard. When Kopeikin came up to the hazard, he was skiing under control at a safe speed. As he made his way across the cat track, he fell into the boulder field. Again, it is alleged that he had no opportunity to avoid the hazard, and he sustained serious injuries as

This loss involves a middle age female who was boarding the insured’s shuttle bus at the Louis Armstrong Airport in New Orleans, LA. On 1120/11, the insured operator, a new employee, failed to properly place the shuttle bus in park, causing the bus to shift resulting in the plaintiff briefly loosing her balance. According to the insured operator, the plaintiff never fell and disembarked the shuttle with no injuries.

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed in Kane County, Illinois involving an incident at Johnny A’s Third Rail Pub, a local pub owned by the Insured, Beslidheje, Inc. Mr. Tefik Ashiku owns and operates the Insured corporate entity. The pub operates out of a building owned by the co-defendant, Junaid Zubairi. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges negligence against both Beslidheje, Inc. and Zubairi, claiming that the stairway had insufficient or inoperative lighting at the time she fell.

The concept of personal injury law includes a wide array of complex situations in which a person is physically hurt while also suffering emotional and financial damages. The injuries and damages are due to the negligence and wrongdoing of another person or party. A wrongful death can also be considered a case that a bodily injury attorney would be hired to handle by a surviving family member. However, most common personal injury cases emerge in the unfortunate context of vehicle accidents, construction and workplace mishaps, product liability (defective or dangerous product), medical malpractice, dog bites, recreational fall-backs, and environmental pollutants and poisonings. Silverthorne Attorneys

If the commissioner 's actions caused by his breach of duty link to the damages suffered, the plaintiff’s party must also prove proximate cause, the fourth element of negligence. The two key concepts of proximate cause are that the tortfeasor’s conduct was the closest in to proximity to the damages and that there was no superseding causes that could cancel out the tortfeasor’s liability. In determining proximate cause, courts use foreseeability in defining the scope of risk. Given the statistics of an average of 1,750 injuries per year, the commissioner could have foreseen the possibility of injuries to MLB fans (Gail Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB), 2015). However, proximate cause cannot prevail as an element of proof because there are multiple superseding causes of these injuries that cancel the commissioner 's liability. One superseding cause would be the pitcher throwing a ball in a certain way, combined with the batter’s action of swinging the bat. This forced the ball and/or bat to exit the field of play, injuring the plaintiffs. Another superseding cause is the section the plaintiffs decided to purchase tickets. In this case, tickets purchased in an exposed section along the first base line are more dangerous than those covered by protective netting.

In 1976, a football student-athlete at Indiana State University suffered an injury that left him as a quadriplegic. In 1983, the case Rensing v. Indiana State University Board of Trustees was heard by the Indiana State Supreme Court. The court decided that “the Indiana court of appeals incorrectly concluded that Rensing was an employee under the Workmen’s Compensation Act” and therefore Indiana State University was not responsible to provide Rensing with any medical or disability expenses. It is a requirement of the NCAA for every athlete to carry health insurance and to provide health insurance to those athletes who are not able to provide their own health insurance. It is also highly recommended that NCAA institutions carry additional health care insurance for their

The PARENTS will counterargue that "while the parents may assume the normal risks associated with the activity, they do not waive their rights for any and all injuries that may occur by signing the consent form.. They cannot assume risks of which they have no knowledge. ...For knowing acceptance to occur, it is important that all risks inherent in an activity are apparent or explained and that they are voluntarily assumed."

The bodily harm that can be caused from playing at the collegiate can disastrous to players bodies for years to come. Each year there are thousands of injuries associated with playing college sports. While some maybe miner, others can cause irreversible damage that may leave players paralyzed or badly injured. Colleges and universities usually don’t continue to pay for medical coverage for those who are injured badly and need long term care. So, young players are left to fend for themselves with no way to pay for medical bills. They are putting their bodies and futures on the line to participate in sports that could result in permanent damage to their bodies. With such a high risk of calamity college students should be compensated to insure they have money they could use when they are unable to play college sports.

After an incoming student signs a letter of intent to attend a university, a good majority of NCAA schools have no contractual obligation to treat injuries or strains that result from playing for that college. Upon joining a Division 1 team, every participant must have insurance and undergo a medical examination before playing. However, when it comes to protecting the players, who generate billions of dollars every year, from having to pay unexpected medical bills or ensuring they receive proper healthcare, there are no official NCAA rules in place. There is also rules to prohibit a coach from

According to the Bureau of Labor, statistics indicate that more than 4.1 million people were hurt or injured on-the-job in 2006 and 5,488 were killed in 2007 (Gomez-Mejia, Balkin, & Cardy, 2010, p. 511). Laws and regulatory requirements are currently in place to standardize and promote workplace safety. Organizations with extensive safety programs have reduced number of accidents, decreased workers’ compensation claims and lawsuits and lesser accident-related expenditures (Gomez-Mejia, et al, 2010, p. 511). This paper discusses the effects of legal, safety and regulatory requirements in

Over the past decade, the increase in participation from recreational sporting activities to organized has increased significantly (Taniguchi, 2003). With more individuals taking part, the amount of injuries has escalated and the amount of negligent lawsuits soon followed. The courts have had to acclimate themselves and look at sporting injuries through the lens of tort law (Harvard Law Review, 2008). The landmark case in the state of California, Knight v. Jewett, the state supreme court upheld the original ruling that participants who knowingly cause injury to another contestant outside of the normal rules of conduct while participating in a sporting activity, are liable or negligent, changed the course how courts would rule in tort cases (Harvard Law Review, 2008). Hence, tort law is now a leading point of discussion in athletic and physical education departments in our local school districts (Taniguchi, 2003). Included in the discussion is intentional tort, when a player injuries another participant purposely (Wolohan, 2013). For intentional tort to be ruled on, three essentials must be present: 1.an injury must have occurred, 2. the cause of injury is due to a negligent act, 3. the act that caused the injury must be intentional (Wolohan, 2013). Thus, the merging of recreational activities, extreme sports, and physical education programs, intentional tort law will be looked at in the school setting.

The risk management program in any business, especially in a health care organization is an integral part of its day to day operation. The purpose of the risk management department is summed up by Kavaler & Alexander (2014), “…a program designed to reduce the incidence of preventable accidents and injuries to minimize the financial loss to the institution should any accident or injury occur” (p. 5). Protecting employees, patients, vendors and visitors is an ongoing process and one that needs to be updated when the healthcare organization has deemed necessary. This paper will demonstrate the importance of presenting the risk management program to new employees, compliance with the standards set forth by the American Society of Healthcare Risk Management (ASHRM), propose recommendations or changes needed to further improve the program, as well as examine the administrative process of managing a risk program.

In this report is a fully reasoned quantification of, our client, Mr. Steven Pearson’s personal injury claim against Mr. Fred Prendergast.