Laaperi Vs Sears Case Summary

In the case of Branham v. Ford Motor Co., the Plaintiff brought the case against Hale, the driver, and Ford because the company failed to test the seat-belt sleeve, even though he did not "seriously pursue the claim against Hale" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). The case against Ford was based on "two product liability claims: one for not testing the seat belt and the other a design defect claim related to the vehicles tendency to rollover" (Reed, Pagnattaro, Cahoy, Shedd & Morehead, 2012). Branham alleged in his case that "Ford was negligent and strictly liable in failing to effectively test the

The plaintiff Michael Aloe, widower of Robin Aleo, brought a suit individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate in Massachusetts/ U.S. First Circuit, against SLB Toys, Amazon.com Inc., Toys “R” Us, and Amazon.com Kids, Inc., after his wife dies from injuries sustained when an inflatable pool slide collapsed while she was sliding down. The decedent was attempting to slide down head first in an inflatable, in-ground swimming pool slide imported and sold by Toys R Us. The pool slide collapsed and caused her to strike her head on the concrete deck of the pool. The decedent fractured two cervical vertebrae and suffered a severed spinal cord. She died the following day after she was removed from life support.

Brohawn, supra, 276 Md. at 399. Subsequently, the other party to the altercation filed an action against Brohawn seeking damages for intentional torts and negligence. Id. at 399-400. Transamerica, Brohawn’s insurer, refused to defend Brohawn on the grounds that her coverage contained a policy exclusion whereby Transamerica was not responsible for intentional conduct. Id. at 400. Thereafter, Transamerica initiated a declaratory judgment action, in the same court, seeking to have the court declare that Brohawn’s conduct was intentional, and, therefore, fell within the policy exclusion. Id. at 401. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action because “the question of coverage would be ‘determined by the jury’s verdict in the tort suits]. . . .” Id. at

In response to this incredible tragedy, surviving family members John & Michelle Lewis, Mark Dupin, and Brian Cunningham filed a lawsuit. According to the Fire Chief who had responded to the scene, on the night of the fire there were no working smoke detectors within the home. In the lawsuit, it was claimed that the landlord had an obligation to ensure that smoke detectors were not only installed in the home, but also were installed in the appropriate areas of the home. It also claimed a responsibility of the landlord to have installed these smoke detectors in the appropriate areas, coinciding with the time at which the property's lease was signed. Specifically, the

Due to their fear of being deported, there is no actual data regarding the number of undocumented persons in the country. Yet, census data shows that there are over 11.4 million Latino children under the age of eighteen in the United States. (Lopez, 2015) Additionally, the growing population of Latina/o children and their fight for education, a New Civil Rights Movement has emerged as undocumented students fight for access and recognition in higher education. Undocumented immigrants’ access to higher education can be a highly politicized and controversial issue, especially depending on the state nation’s economy and the political atmosphere in the country at the time. (Gildersleeve, 2010)

Publications created by high school and college students are under constant scrutiny from their audience of students, parents and administrators. Each publication must navigate a variety of challenges including funding, staffing and their school’s administration. One of the most pressing issues facing school publications today is prior review, the process by which a school’s administration must approve the newspaper, magazine or yearbook before it is distributed. There have been many cases involving prior review of high school publications, most notably Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. There have been relatively few cases focusing on this issue as related to college publications, and this paper will examine how the Hazelwood ruling has been applied to cases involving these publications.

The Plaintiffs, family of the decedent plaintiff, Barbara J. O’Neil, filed a wrongful death complaint due to mesothelioma against the defendant manufacturers, Crane Co. et al., in concerns of valves and pumps manufactured for use on Navy warships. This particular claim raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent

In 1994 Mr. Latimer was found guilty of second-degree murder of his daughter Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old girl who had a severe form of cerebral palsy. On a leave to appeal from the Superior Court of Canada (SCC), Mr. Latimer’s imposition of mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in this case, so the accused should receive a constitutional exemption from minimum sentences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the second trial, the defence counsel asked the trial judge for a ruling, in advance of his closing submissions, on whether the jury could consider a defence of necessity. Whether the jury should have been allowed to consider a defence of necessity. The trial judge told counsel that he would rule on necessity after the closing submissions, and later ruled that the defence was not available. Whether the timing of trial judge's ruling as to the availability of the defence rendered accused's trial unfair.

This Defendant now seeks summary judgment against the Plaintiff’s negligence claims because (1) this Defendant owed the Plaintiff no duty with regard to the incident made the basis of this suit; and (2) no act or omission on the part of this Defendant was a proximate cause of the subject incident or of the Plaintiff’s resulting injuries.

In Greenman V. Yuba Power, the plaintiff was injured while using a power tool called the Shopsmith that was given to him as a gift from his wife in 1955. In 1957, while using the tool, the piece of wood he had been working without difficulty suddenly flew out and struck him on the head causing injuries. Ten and a half months later, he gave the retailer and manufacturer written notice of the claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint against them both alleging such breaches and negligence. After a trial before the jury, the court ruled there was no evidence that the retailer was negligent or breached an express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer

In the wrongful death case of Barker v. Hennessy, Richard Barker’s widow and children filed a claim against Hennessy Industries Inc. for losses sustained by virtue of the death of Richard Barker. Barker claimed that Hennessy Industries Inc. was liable for her husband’s death, under the theories of strict liability, negligence, false representation, and concealment, since they manufactured the equipment that was used to grind, sand, and cut asbestos brake linings and shoes that Barker had used in his profession as a mechanic ("Fern Barker v. Hennessy Industries Inc | FindLaw," n.d.). The court ruled in favor of Hennessy, finding that they were not liable because the machines that Hennessy made did not actually contain the asbestos that caused the death of Barker.

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 plaintiffs in this case are Amber Arlington and Madison Metroplex. The causes of action available to Ms. Metroplex are direct negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring and harassment. Ms. Arlington would have a cause of action to recover as a bystander to the accident if she had a familial relationship to Ms. Metroplex. As she does not, there is no cause of action available to Ms. Arlington. The defendants are Forever 21 and the Austin Forever 21’s store manager. Their available defenses are comparative negligence and assumption of risk.

Were any injuries suffered? If so, who? If not, how did the Plaintiffs fail to prove injury?

Tang filed a two-count complaint for negligence and vicarious liability against Hipster, for injuries sustained during the evacuation of Airline Boeing 737 aircraft on February 1, 2015, in San Diego, California. Tang’s Complaint is deficient on its face and presents no potentially viable claims for relief against Hipster; nor does the complaint meet the pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). This Court should dismiss Tang’s complaint with prejudice.