Facts
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.
In 2005, Toys R Us started
…show more content…
A consumer should be able to assume that when they follow the instructions properly, a slide pool should remain inflated when they use it, without causing any unreasonable danger or harm.
Secondly, Aloe can allege for negligence which lead to the wrongful death of his wife because Toys R Us did not follow the required testing procedures for compliance with Federal Safety Standard. In addition, Toys R Us are negligent for having only one employee in their safety assurance department who received approximately 4,000 certificates of this kind per month.
Furthermore, Aloe could also make a strong argument by imposing strict liability in tort on Toys R Us for personal injuries that result from selling a defective product with design defect that is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer without proper testing and compliance with Federal safety standard for such products. Aloe could also appeal for both compensatory and punitive damages for the loss which could be economic (such as lost income, medical expense) or non economic (such as pain and suffering and loss of consortium, meaning the loss of someone’s active presence and enjoyment in their life).
Discussion from plaintiff’s side
Aloe could argue that the cause of death of his wife is due to the defective and unreasonably dangerous product that Toys R Us knowingly sold in the market. The regulation
To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;
Nothing can prepare a family for an unexpected death. The toll it takes has devastating emotional consequences. To make matters worse, there are practical problems that often arise. The deceased may have incurred large medical bills before they died. The death requires a burial which can cost the surviving family members more than expected. Also, if the deceased provided income for the family, the struggle to keep their lives going can be almost impossible. When the death was caused by an act of negligence, there are terms for the surviving family members to bring forward a wrongful death claim.
Under the management of Wes Anderson, Daniel the assistant coach, allowed a few players to test a product out on a child in way it would be considered not intended use for. We want to know if Wes is negligent in any way based off of the elements of negligence.
Alex Johnson was injured as a result of Craig's negligence, which he admitted to and settled. Alex's injuries were not caused by Bethlehem Ice Solutions. There is a clear case for contributory negligence, because both skiers were at fault, Alex for the assumption of risk and Craig for breach of duty of care because he failed to take precautions on the ski slopes.
With regard to Ms. Green’s claims against O’Brien, it is apparent that Ms. Green was O’Brien’s client, and that O’Brien owed Ms. Green a duty. Should this case proceed to trial we do not anticipate that we would argue to a jury that O’Brien did not neglect this duty. Rather, there are serious questions as to whether “the negligence resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the client.” Kendall v. Rogers, 181 Md. 606, 611-12 (1943). Indeed, the estate will have to demonstrate that Ms. Green would have prevailed in proving that one or both health care provider defendants committed medical negligence that caused her to fall into the diabetic coma.
BUGusa Inc. knew about the defect but made a conscious decision not to “redesign” the product because it would cost too much money. Sally may have a successful case claiming intentional tort, negligence, design and manufacturing defect, causation and damages and strict liability.
The main issue of this case is to determine if Tricontinental may recover from PwC for negligence. In order to show negligence there must be four requirements that the plaintiff must show. The four requirements are: the defendant owed a duty of care, defendant breached that duty, breach of duty to care caused the plaintiff’s injury, and fourth that damages resulted.
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.
Ronnie was the primary victim as he was placed in physical danger whilst in the truck and suffered psychiatric harm as a result. For this sole reason, he is owed a duty of care by his employers. The nature of their relationship means . Failure to install a new safety screen equates to the company's failure to meet the standard of care and they are liable for breach. Ronnie's refusal to wear a helmet is an example of negligent contribution and the two requirements of this principle are satisfied: Ronnie did not take proper care for his own safety and said failure was contributory to the damage he suffered. This is similar to the Capps v Miller case of 1989, where the claimant did not fasten his helmet, subsequently suffering from serious head injuries. Contributory negligence operates as a defence for Bricks R Us, however it is only partial to avoid absolution of liability, since the court's primary aim is to compensate the
To prove the negligence of the Big Slope Resort, Ben and Jerry must prove five elements of negligence. First, they must prove the resort’s duty. In this instance, duty is clear as Ben and Jerry are business visitors for whom the premises should be reasonably safe. Second, breach of duty must be proven. The resort’s failure to inspect the lift for guests prior to the shutdown satisfies that requirement. Third, the breach of duty must have caused damages. Ben and Jerry suffered physical injuries as a result of being stranded. Fourth, the breach of duty must have been the proximate cause of the damages. In other words, the breach of duty must be closely linked with the resulting damages. For this case, the actions of the resort were the only cause for the injuries. There were no other factors separating the cause and effect. Finally, there must be damage or injury. Ben and Jerry suffered from frostbite and other injuries, which qualify for this final criteria of
The court’s opinion reflected the argument that consumers are disadvantaged in product-liability actions under traditional negligence principles. Strict liability’s intent is to relieve the plaintiff’s burden of proving actual negligence.
2. No, I would not sue The Cardward store if my child was not hurt but if my child was hurt I would sue. The only settlement I would ask Cardware to pay for the hospital bills and days I miss from work. If I would sue I would for strict liability. Cardware can argue that I am just as guilty of negligence as they are because I should have been watching the
This paper will consider the facts associated with the case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald’s, resulting from Ms. Liebeck’s efforts to collect for damages sustained when she spilled extremely hot coffee into her lap in 1992. The issues, applicable laws and the conclusion the jury reached will also be covered as well as the subsequent impacts on American tort law following this decision.
Despite the fact that Bobby could be partially culpable due to contributory negligence, there is still an issue with the product. If the product had been recalled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and was still available for sale, that would be a criminal offence. However, even if this is the first issue with the basketball rim, ACE is still
Product recalls have opened the company to numerous lawsuits from consumers that were hurt by the recalled products.