Law Questions Essay

On March 26, 2008, Hughes filed an initial grievance against Boston Scientific in the district court of Mississippi, seeking recovery of injuries allegedly caused by the HTA medical device. A summary judgment was awarded to Boston Scientific on the court’s conclusion that all claims made by Hughes are preempted under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. On

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

In the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, the plaintiff fractured her wrist while riding in a Rue le Dodge bumper car at an amusement park in California. The plaintiff filed a case of negligence against the defendant. To prove negligence, the plaintiff will have to establish all of the following requirements: (1) duty of due care, breach of duty, causation, and injury. The defendant had the Rue le Dodge ride inspected yearly by state safety regulators and daily by the park’s maintenance staff. This means they filled their duty of maintaining the ride, breach of duty than does not apply or causation, but there was injury.

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

The Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligent entrustment, against the Defendant, Mr. Franklin. Pl.’s Compl. Count II, (Feb. 23, 2016). The Plaintiff alleged that, on the day of the accident Ms. Johnson was using Mr. Franklin’s vehicle with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Franklin. Pl.’s Compl. at 3 ¶ 7 (Feb. 23, 2016). The Plaintiff stated that on the day of the accident she overheard Ms. Johnson state to the police officer that she was driving her boyfriend’s vehicle, and assumed that he gave her permission to use the vehicle. Def.’s Interrog. No. 10 (Mar. 8, 2016).

To claim negligence, the Strums had to show that Harb had a duty, that he breached that duty, that the breach caused an injury, and that there was an actual injury. A duty may come from a contract or a state law such as a building code. However, the Strums failed to show that Harb was personally a party to the contract and failed to show any duty imposed by law. The Strums also failed to allege the manner in which Harb breached the duty, if there was a duty. Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the Strums had failed to state a case against Harb and dismissed this part of the case. Had the Strums(plaintiffs) asserted in their Complaint facts concerning Harb’s personal behavior and actions, the results of this case may well have been reversed. It is vitally important for a person who has a complaint against another person to allege facts that, if proven to be true, will cause a court to rule in favor of the person who has the

Due to the incident of 11/20/11, the plaintiff is alleging she sustained significant injuries as result of the insured operator’s failure to properly park the bus. Since the date of loss and over a three year period, the plaintiff had undergone multiple surgeries involving the neck, back, both knees and left foot. The plaintiff has been diagnosis with multiple herniated disc of the cervical spine requiring a discectomy, multiple herniated disc of the lumbar spine resulting in a spinal fusion, right & left medial meniscus and ACL tears requiring surgical intervention and a metatarsal fusion of the left foot. In addition to the aforementioned injuries, the plaintiff has experienced ongoing episodes of depression and incontinence. .

The question this week deals with product liability, on the ground of strict liability. Bob was shopping at Carl’s Hardware store. One of Carl’s employee’s named Dan was using a nail gun and it fired without warning. A nail struck Bob in the leg. After checking the nail gun Carl discovers the manufacture, Eagle Tools, Inc., improperly assembled the tool. Bob files a suit against Eagle Tools, Inc, for product liability, on the ground of strict liability. The elements for action based on strict liability will be covered, who the court will like rule in favor of, and why in the following paragraphs.

This case involves a single motor vehicle accident that occurred on rural property located near Floresville, Texas. The accident occurred when the Co-Defendant, Lee Ricks, IV, drove his jeep off a ledge near the bank of the San Antonio River. The accident occurred at night and on property owned by Riverbend Development, LLC. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was occupied by Brittany Baltzell and the two Plaintiffs, Ashley Simmons and Austin Wright. Ms. Baltzelll was Mr. Ricks girlfriend at the time and she and Mr. Ricks were not seriously injured as a result of the accident. Both the Plaintiffs claim serious physical injuries and have sued Mr. Ricks for negligent driving. They have also sued the insureds, Riverbend Development, LLC

On July 5, 2005, Dr. Smiriti Nalwa took her two children to Great America amusement park. The plaintiff and her two children went on the park’s “Rue le Dodge” bumper car ride. The plaintiff and her son drove in a bumper car together. After hitting several other cars, their car was bumped from the front and then from the back. The plaintiff felt as if she needed to brace herself and placed her hand on the car’s “dashboard”

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

The workers’ compensation claim detailed the circumstances surrounding an injury that he suffered while at work. He confessed that while working on the job site he sustained severe burns to his lower body. His duties on this day included that he make some repairs to a leaky fuel line. During this process fuel spilled onto his pants. Additionally while making repairs pieces of steel become caught on his pants. Lastly as Mr. Martinez attempted to use a torch to cut free pipe a spark ignited the fuel on his pants. This resulted in burns to his lower body. This injury resulted in him to miss having to miss a considerable amount time from work. He filed a workers compensation to replace part of his lost wages. The suit accused the defendants of failing to maintain a safe work site for its subcontractors and in failing to provide personal protective clothing, personal protective equipment, and firefighting equipment.

I have located the following cases and statues that I believe can be used as Affirmative Defenses for our client, Anheuser-Bush in the case of Justin King. Further, I believe the statute of limitation has expired for filing this auto accident claim for negligence, the Plaintiff is more than 50% negligent in his own injuries, therefore, modified comparative negligence, further, the plaintiff failed to wear protective headgear as is required in his resident state of Missouri.

The prosecutor advised the jury to consider the extent to which Ford recklessly and knowingly trade profit over safety in the placement and design of the Pinto’s gas tank. Ford Company went ahead to manufacture the car even after the engineers did a crash test that

The specific aims and purposes of criminal law is to punish criminals, and prevent people from becoming future criminals by using deterrence. “Having a criminal justice system that imposes liability and punishment for violations deter.” (Paul H. Robinson, John M. Darley, Does Criminal Law Deter? A Behavioural Science Investigation, Oxford Journal of Legal studies, volume 24, No. 2 (2004), pp. 173-205). Criminal law