Legal Memo

In the beginning of “Sunday at the Water Park” Mariah is getting interviewed by the editor of the school’s newspaper about her job as a life guard at the waterpark. In the middle of the interview Mariah stops talking because she started to notice that a child was starting to drown. She grabbed a rescue tube and dived into the water and went over to him. Immediately she wrapped her hands around his waist and lifted his head. She started to bring him towards side of the pool and put him onto the cement. The boy wasn’t fully unconscious so he did not need CPR. He started to cough up water and was able to breath, no one else had noticed he was drowning. The editor asked her for another interview about what had just happened and she replied saying

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), an owner, lessee, or occupant of land may be liable for injury to a child caused by a highly dangerous artificial condition on the land if:

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

A married couple, both addicted to drugs, is unable to care for their infant daughter. She is taken from them by court order and placed in a foster home. The years pass. She comes to regard her foster parents as her real parents. They love her as they would their own daughter. When the child is 9 yrs. old, the natural parents, rehabilitated from drugs, begin court action to regain custody. The case is decided in their favor. The child is returned to them, against her will.

This additional evidence showed that Days Inn did not exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises safe. The court concluded that the prior criminal activity was sufficiently substantially similar to Matt’s incident and the landowner was negligent in not taking reasonable precautions to protect its guests. Id. at 795

RP stated law enforcement received a call from an anonymous caller stated an employee, Shemaiah Messengale grabbed the child Marley's arm which is fractured. Law enforcement contacted the child's mother to verify injuries. It was disclosed the child had suffered 4 fractures to her elbow and wrist. The RP stated law enforcement spoke with owner/licensee of the facility and the employee accused of causing the injury. They reported Marley sustained the injuries accidentally when she fell from slide. The RP stated the child was treated at Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) by Dr. Lindsey Andras who determined the injuries are consistent with a fall. Law enforcement did not speak with treating doctor to confirm the information. The RP disclosed

To determine Burov’s liability, two elements require further analysis: did Burov know or has a reason to know that children are likely to trespass and did the children realize the risks associated with meddling with the hot tub. If either element is met Burov will not be liable for Frank’s

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

1. Did the Tuttles know that the girls were going swimming, and did they give them permission to go unsupervised?

UNDER ARIZONA LAW, THE MALONES HAVE A VAID NUISANCE CLAIM AGAINST HERRERA AND MUST BE UPHELD SINCE: (1) HERRERA KNEW AND REALIZED THE CONDITION OF THE POND WOULD CAUSE INJURY TO MARIA MALONES LEG AND POSSIBLE DEATH, AND (2) MARIA MALONE DID NOT APPRECIATE THE RISK OF DANGER PRESENT WITH THE CONDITION OF THE POND, BECAUSE OF MARIA MALONE 'S YOUTH AND LACK OF REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE.

The reporting party (RP) stated his daughter has had several falls resulting in injuries. According to the RP the falls were due to the teacher's lack of supervision. On 11/1/16 while walking down steps the child turned away from the RP 19 month child and loss contact causing the child to fall down the steps. Subsequently on 10/11/16 the child was bitten on 3 occasion on her left arm and elbow in one day. A month prior the RP reported his daughter fell while outdoors on concrete with insufficient cushioning. Again the child fell on a toy and injured her eye. The RP is aware children fall, however what activities are the children engaged in where they continue to be injured. The RP believes the children are not properly supervised during unstructured

In addition, Ann wet her pants and this fact can show the sign of impairment of her physical condition because she was in need of parental care to help her with using the bathroom. Further, their attempt to go find their mother demonstrates their mental stress. Arguably, it shows that their emotional distress, and that they desperately needed their mother because they wanted to see her even though they weren’t sure if they could find her. In her defense, Ms. Ryan can argue that children often cry or wet their pants even when they are closely supervised. In this case, Ms. Ryan’s children told the CWS investigator that she was a “good mommy,” she never left them alone, and “mommy was nice.” These statements of the children would likely support that Ms. Ryan’s argument that she is not a neglectful or abusive mother because they both find her to be a good mother. The fact that the children regard Ms. Ryan as a good mother is probative of her providing her children with good care. More likely than not, the court would conclude that the children’s physical, mental or emotional conditions were not sufficiently

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 narrator states that maybe there would be a pool in the next town. There was a pool, but with the turn of events, maybe the fact was not so fortunate. First of all the pool was closed, but because her children were so hot and tired of sitting in the car the narrator begged the lifeguard to allow her children to swim. After the lifeguard consented, she dressed her children in swimming suits and then went to find a drink for herself. When she felt a mother's intuition for her children she ran back to the pool and at first did not see her youngest daughter. Her daughter had fallen into the deep end of the pool. Although the little girl did not drown, the mother was still shaken.