Keller Vs Delong Summary

While victorious, the plaintiff’s believed that the district court had erred in their decision not to award punitive damages. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the court had erred in denying their motion for summary judgment.

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

Had he been wearing the safety belt, he would not have been killed. The second defense that Ford Motor Company has is that the purpose of a car is to drive it and not to crash a car so that it spun. Since, the door flew open during a spin, Ford Motor Company was not liable for the death of Chancit. The normal use of a car is not to send it into a spin. The third defense that Ford Motor Company has is that Chancit was suffering from food poisoning and was unwell, that was why he was thrown out of the car. The fourth defense is that the car is meant for normal driving. The safety measures in the car were adequate for normal driving. Since, Chancit was driving in a closed lane and possibly at a speed that was higher than that permitted, Ford Motor Company was no liable. III. The City of Los Angeles is liable of negligence. The sign board it placed said Left lane closed ahead, whereas, it was Right lane closed ahead. The City of Los Angeles had a duty of care to ensure that it placed the correct signs so that motorists were not misguided. There was a breach of duty because the City of Los Angeles placed the wrong sign and this misguided Chancit into an accident. There was direct cause between the placement of the wrong sign and the accident that killed Chancit. There was legal causation. Chancit suffered harm because he was killed. In other words, the City of Los Angeles is guilty of negligence. The court will rule in favor of Chancit and award his widow

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

In the Pat Dunn V. Chris LePuck case I am in favor of the defendant, Chris LePuck. The plaintiff, Pat Dunn, an experienced hockey player, knowingly and voluntary entered the hockey game. By nature of the sport, hockey games require players to have contact with each other so Dunn had the responsibility to assume the risk when he entered the game. The plaintiff also failed to wear a helmet during the game making him negligent. In relation to self defense, the plaintiff intentionally tripped and punched the defendant without the defendants permissions making it reasonable for the defendant to protect himself and hit Dunn with the stick. In consideration of the law of comparative fault, the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the legal fault of the plaintiff because the plaintiff is more than fifty percent legally at fault for the accident and damaged he faced. In proving that Chris LePuck is not liable for any damages or injuries Pat Dunn incurred, five similar court

Hari, 218 Ill 2d. 275 (2006). The charges, in this case, was attempted murder of his wife, and the murder of her lover. He was sentenced to prison for 48 years for murder and an additional 25 years for the attempt. The case was appealed due to the defendant’s involuntarily intoxication. The defendant had been taking an antidepressant and mixed it with Tylenol PM. The defendant claimed to be in a confused state. It was like he was there, but not there. The defendant had a psych evaluation, thought the doctor claimed that he had many problems, he was sane. According to the Supreme Court, there was evidence that the defendant was involuntarily intoxicated to do the mixed drugs Zoloft and Tylenol, last of sleep and his previous alcohol dependency. The jury didn’t know that the defendant had to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This case was sent back to the circuit court for a new

2. Attorney Babot is arguing the summary judgment to defendant of proximate cause should not to be granted for the following 3 reasons: . (1) It is determined that a jury could award damages to the plaintiff, thus summary of law this precludes judgment. (2) Injuries to the plaintiff and death of her husband were the foreseeable consequences of service to a visibly intoxicated person. (3) Criminal act can be the intervening act that does not break the can of causation because the act is easily foreseeable, There are differences in truths offered by both parties. The defendants state this was a criminal act which breaks the chain of

The Shin v. Akin case was presented to the Supreme Court of California due to the plaintiff, Shin, stating that the defendant, Akin, was negligent during playing golf at the Rancho Park golf course that resulted in his injury. The plaintiff stated that himself, the defendant, and a third party went to the golf course to play a round of golf. However, during the game, the plaintiff took a break to check his phone for message and take a water break. During the plaintiff’s break, the plaintiff decided to walk in front of the group and wait for them at the 13th hole, while the defendant and the third party was at the 12th hole proceeding to the 13th hole. The plaintiff states that as he was standing at the 13th hole, the defendant acknowledge his

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

Cal was a victim to several negligible acts that resulted in the loss of his legs. On the day in question Cal was a passenger in Abe’s car when it was in a collision with Deb’s vehicle. Although he only sustained minor injuries due to the initial impact, another negligible driver, Ann struck both cars causing Cal more traumatic injuries. Once Cal was at the hospital he was informed that he required a surgery to possibly save his legs, but was never explained the requirements or risks involved if the surgery was successful. He unknowingly consented to the surgery which was an unsuccessful, resulting in the loss of use of both of his legs. After the surgery Cal experienced indescribable amounts of pain and suffering, upon returning to the doctor it was discovered one of the surgeons had left a metal clamp inside Cal’s leg and sewed him up, which required additional surgery for its removal. Based on these facts, Cal has many legal rights to recover damages by those liable for his injuries.

The proximate cause of the accident was that there were no flashing lights at the crossing. The plaintiffs are claiming that due to this negligence in the design and maintenance

Mark was charged and arrested with (DWI) driving while intoxicated. After patrol officers complete the investargation of the car crash of what could have cause the fatal car crash. Mark have been accuse of reckless driven meaning that he was operation an automobile in a dangerous manner under the circumstance, including speeding, driving after drunk and also having too many passengers in the car while operation the automobile. Mark also have four counts of felony assault causing physical harm and life threathen injure to more than one person. Along, with a involuntary manslaughter causing a untimely death of an individual as a result of operation am automobile while intoxicated.

The defendant Raettig was driving the car involved in the accident that occurred in 2004 with Gawler as the passenger also, the claimant. The defendant admitted to losing control of the car which as a result left the claimant seriously injured. The medical results showed that this was partially because the claimant was not wearing his seatbelt which ejected him from the car sustaining catastrophic

After crossing the street in Mount Pleasant, a woman, 71, died and her husband, 74 years old, had been left injured. A vehicle struck them as they tried to cross the street on a Tuesday afternoon. The accident occurred on Sunnyslope Drive at Highway 20. Before the accident, the couple had been trying to reach the McDonald's that was across the highway. As a result of the accident, the woman was killed on impact, and paramedics rushed the man by airlifting him to the local hospital. They listed him as serious condition, but medical examiners expect that he will survive.

At trial court, the judge deliberated that Dr. Scott was negligent for failing to show that the growth might not have been benign. The judge ruled the defendant was a breach of duty.