IRAC Example

This paper will attempt to prove Mr. Ard did NOT have the chance to survive due to the lack of supervision from his nursing staff. As well as attempt to prove that the employer is in fact responsible for the actions or non-actions of its medical staff. The medical staff during that time did not make the necessary and they did not provide the proper care that one is required in a medical setting. There was a lack of communication between the staff and patient till it was too late. For two hours the bell was being rung and no one of assistance came by. Where were the nurses? Were they off the clock, on lunch, asleep, or were they just simply not doing their duty?

Now if we take a look at the Code of Ethics for Engineers manual, we can deduce that what these two are not being honest with their presentation. What they have presented to Holmes is not what the hydraulic press the created was meant to do. It is clearly stated in the manual that “engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty.” As Holmes begins to understand the reality of the presentation he states, “I think that I should be better able to advise you as to your machine if I knew what the exact purpose was for which it was used.” The presenters understand that their lies have been exposed and that they can no

This situation happened three weeks before collapse and it continue without experience workers considering concern of the load not properly distributed. The project engineer should have been in charge with the stockpiling of materials on the bridge because construction inspector was in charge that materials met standards. A safety engineer noted that the gusset plate was bowing during his inspection and consulted another engineer on the problem. The other engineer said the connection did not show deterioration or signs of deterioration and other design problems was not their job, so the bowing was not noted in the inspection report. The safety engineer was knowledgeable to know that the bowing was a problem in the structure of the bridge but taking the suggestion from the other engineer suggest that safety engineer duty did not align with their will that bowing was the problem but it was not their job to suggest

On March 21, 2015, Reuters reported that the King Pine lift at Sugarloaf Mountain Ski Resort malfunctioned. Nine chairs travelled backwards on the cable, injuring seven people; three of whom required hospitalization for non-threatening injuries. Sugarloaf experienced a similar incident on December 28, 2010. (Cavalier, 2015) Bangor Daily News reported that eight individuals were hospitalized for injuries as a result of the derailment of the Spillway East chairlift. Rick Tounge, one of the eight injured, stated, “I think we’re pretty conscious of the risk we think we’re taking (in skiing), and that involves trees and other skiers and that stuff. You don’t expect the chair to try and kill you.” (Portland Press Herald, 2011) Michael Katz filed suit against Sugarloaf Mountain Resort on the following six causes of action: I. negligence, II. common carrier liability, III. strict product liability, IV. breach of warranty, V. loss of consortium, VI. punitive damages. The defendants moved for dismissal of claims II, III, and IV. The Superior Court of Maine granted the motion to dismiss claims III and IV but denied the motion to dismiss on claim II. (Michael and Patricia Katz et al v. CNL Lifestyle Properties et al).

There were significant animosities between labor and management at the time of this accident. Perhaps the maintenance personnel would have been more thorough if labor relations would have been more amiable. There are many factors that could have interfered with the maintenance personnel performing the repairs properly ranging from form personal problems to job satisfaction. If the employee was subjected any undo pressures or distractions the employees performance may have been affected. This pressure could stem from many areas such as working conditions, to experiencing marital, family, or health problems.

It is alarming to know that each year there are over 4,500 scaffold injuries and 65 deaths (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2016). In addition, there is a high risk for construction workers to be struck from objects falling off scaffolds. With these facts in mind, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) 2013 case of the Secretary of Labor v Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) raises questions as to why violations of OSHA’s scaffold standards are sometimes considered “other-than serious.” Understanding that OSHA gives the Secretary of Labor the tasks of rulemaking and enforcement of its rules, it also gives the task of carrying out the legal process to the commission which both parties accepted, as well as PCI “engaging as a business affecting interstate commerce” (Secretary of Labor v. PCI, 2013, pp. 2-3). Knowledge of the case’s background, parties involved, arguments presented, cases used to reach a verdict, and final ruling provide insight to the penalties assessed, significance, and personal opinion.

In this situation, I would have sided with Dudley and Stephens. I believe they have come to a moral course of action through the use of utilitarianism and fairness. Furthermore, they recognize that inaction would cause injury and death to all crew members which is a violation individual rights. By violating a single member’s individual rights, the remaining crew may survive. This is a more logical choice than to let everyone suffer and die together while a viable solution can be reached with minimal harm. That said, if I were to be put in this situation it’s impossible to know if I would feel the same then as I do now. This scenario, while a solid ethical exercise, is one I hope to never encounter. People who have endured things similar to this are forever changed by their experiences and

Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 16, 20-21 (1977) two parents were able to recover emotional distress damages while being bystanders and witnessing injuries to a close relative caused by a defective product. This case also seems to be on point as it mimics the facts that are found in Fortman v. Förvaltningsbolaget Insulan AB, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS. The two parents witnessed their daughter and son launch out the car due to the lock of the door failing, the daughter lost her life and their son suffered severe injuries. Courts held that the plaintiffs claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress were viable due to the strict liability of the product. Fortman was present during the injury much like the parents in this scenario were, both suffered a loss due to product liability, however Fortman was still unware of the cause of

Causality – The nurses lack of communication to the health care provider causes necessary medical intervention to be prolonged which resulted in brain damage to the baby.

The key takeaway from this case is the impact that rational decision making, and bias avoidance could have altered the outcome of the events. The identification of the problem along with generating a solution, could have assisted the team in learning that not only was there a problem with the pressure on the well, but that a series of other anomalies were occurring that on their own were not devastating, but acting as a group, they could be traumatic to the well construction. Eliminating the understood biases of individuals involved would also help to address the problem in a rational manner with consideration given to the biases, but not allowing them to be a basis for the decisions that are made. It is understandable that individuals would

I think it is hard to handle the situation if the engineers had been trapped in the tunnel, a mass evacuation had been necessary, and a toxic plume had floated over the downtown area as a result of combustion of the dangerous chemicals because they were two incident in one

It was claimed that the nurses, even though they picked up signs/symptoms of a medical emergency in their assessments, did not do enough to see that those concerns were addressed by the physician on duty. They would argue that had the matter been pursued further, the patient’s true injuries could have been diagnosed and treated earlier. Earlier treatment could have prevented the permanent damage and injuries the patient would sustain due to a delay in treatment.

The first problem that was raised was the negligence. If no evidence was found LLC would have been cleared, but the fact that there was evidence that LLC has communicated with KK Glass with safety procedures proves negligence by not providing proper approval of the safety gear. It could have been avoided by not assigning a LLC superintendent. The second problem that arose was the general contractor’s responsibility to ensure safety. The responsibility shifted in the indemnification process from the subcontractor to the general contractor because LLC proposed their own method of safety when using a bosun. This could have been avoided by allowing KK Glass maintain their own safety procedures. Since witnesses were not present, it breaks down that LLC was considered to a proximate cause of Harrison’s death. Overall, a lot of damage could have been avoided with either avoiding the problem in the beginning by stating things similar to that LLC will not be conducting personal safety precautions and it will be the sub-contractor’s

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

He was placed into a situation where he had to decide between his own reputation and the safety of other people. He had to assess the good consequences (a safe skyscraper) and the bad consequences (a potential harm to his reputation by admitting that the tower was faulty), and weigh the outcomes. He acknowledged his errors in engineering the Citicorp Tower and he acted as a faithful agent to his employer by telling them this. He ultimately fixed the tower and kept the public safe, which according to the first fundamental canon of the NSPE code of ethics is the most important rule of practice for