Law and Ethics Case Study: Pastor Forester Issue

Section 9(2)(a) of the Civil Liability Act states that when deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the courts consider the probability of harm occurring if care was not taken. Secondly, s 9(2)(b) considers what the gravity/ seriousness of the risk was and whether the defendant should adopt special care if s/he knows that people with particular needs are exposed to the foreseeable risk. However, the teacher/ school authority is not required to protect the student against all risk and sometimes a reasonable response is to do

2. The school should be held liable for Holbrook injury of there was no school supervision provided in the area Holbrook and other students were gathering.

There are many questions and arguments that remain about the standard of care within schools. Should the current standard of care in relation to schools be increased or remain the same or be substantially reduced? Does law of torts make a teacher’s job too difficult? Should schools always be held liable when a student is injured? ‘A tort is a “civil wrong” and for someone to commit a tort they have to interfere with another person’s rights, or fail in their legal obligations to that person, and this causes the person to suffer.’ (Drew Hopkins, 2008) An example case of civil wrong is State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

1. A pregnant woman lacked standing to sue over a law’s potential unconstitutionally since the law applied to medical practice (and not patients) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

Many of us have worked in job environment that were less than ideal and probably thought about quitting our jobs on a daily basis. Do you ever wonder what it was like before the laws were written and implemented that prevented your boss from discriminating against you and other coworkers? Well I can without a doubt say that I would not have want a job before the 1964 Congress enacted the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

After she was fired, Leger filed a lawsuit alleging that HCS Staffing was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act). After hearing both sides, a federal court ruled in favor

Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related

Consequently, the state governments of Australia have similar policies in regards to the liabilities of teachers for personal injury. Under the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), the Victorian state government protects Victorian public school teachers from liability. The state will only refuse to do so if the

In order to prove Thomas liable in this situation, there would have to be evidence of proximate cause (Essex, 2016). The student, or student’s family, would need to be able to prove that there is a relationship between the principal’s breach of duty, and the injury the student suffered (Essex, 2016). I have dedicated the remainder of this paragraph to describing the ways in which Thomas may be in breach of his duty. Thomas has the responsibility as the school principal to ensure that Homewood High School has highly qualified teachers. It is his responsibility to recommend to the board the person best suited for the

Jennifer alleges that she was terminated because of her pregnancy. She neglects the fact that Greene’s discharged her because her position, junior executive secretary, is redundant to the company. It is transparently that Jennifer is a member of protected class and was dismissed. Yet Greene’s did not violate The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) under Title VII. According to Title VII 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), it is an unlawful employment practice if an employer discharges any individual because of such individual 's race,

Within the Civil Right act was a section entitled Title VII which was created specifically to deal with matters of employment. Title VII’s objective is to prevent discrimination based upon a person’s color, national origin, gender, and religion in regards to all aspects of employment. This protection begins with the initial stages of hiring and training employees and extends up to promotions and dismissals of an employees. If a person belonged to one of the groups outlined by Title VII they became classified as a member of a protected class. (Bohlander and Snell, 101) With the establishment of sex as a protected class the foundation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act had been laid but it would take fourteen years before pregnancy itself would become protected.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire, discharge or discriminate against an individual because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Under Title VII sex discrimination is not unlawful if BFOQ can be proven as necessary for that position.

In a precedent-setting decision in 2000, the state Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a superior court ruling in Carmichael Vs. Wynn & Wynn noting in the text that "discriminatory animus was a factor in the decision not to hire a pregnant woman."

Was your child hurt at school? Get professional advice on what to do from lawyers experienced in personal injury claims. Personal injury claims cover all incidents where a person has been injured by a negligent or intentional act of another. In the event that your child is injured, reach out to an experienced lawyer if you suspect it was at the hands of another.