Legal Office Memo

The Evaluation Form must be attached to your Project 3 submission. I will deduct .25 points if the Evaluation Form is not the first page of your submission. Please note that I deduct 2 points per day that a project is late.

Can plaintiff Ron Arnett state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) under Pennsylvania law given that Arnett was located twenty feet from the accident that injured Sarah Nolan, saw Ricky Landis running toward the pool and realized immediately after the impact what had happened, but viewed the impact while underwater; and though they share an emotional bond, Arnett and Nolan are not biologically or legally related?

Coty v. Ramsey Assocs., 149 Vt. 451, 457 (Vt. 1988). In Coty, when one is trying to determine whether a particular type of interference is substantial the interference would have to be deemed as having "definite offensiveness, inconvenience or annoyance to the normal person in the community." Id. So, has to be determined if the recently constructed chicken coop in Mr. Ellis’ yard are substantial and unreasonable enough to create a private nuisance according to Vermont law. Id. For a nuisance to be unreasonable it means that it would not be reasonable to permit the defendant to cause such an amount of harm intentionally without compensating for it. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 88, at 626-37,626 (5th ed. 2001).

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - the Court states that because Texas law places a duty on Briles and McCaw, the Plaintiff 's negligence claim will fill any gaps.

(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

Here, however, this argument ignores the fact that Herrera fulfilled her duty as a landowner to not willfully or wantonly injure a trespasser, such as Maria. To the contrary, Herrera took appropriate measures to ensure the safely of adults and children by enforcing restrictions to safeguard her guest and the land art on her property.

Plaintiff 1 is Elizabeth Stroot, a 33 year old graduate student who has suffered from allergies and asthma since childhood. Stroot was a tenant at Haverford apartments.

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

This is a coliseum they play in consistently, and they recognize what the tenets are, the manner by which the standards influence them and how the principles influence property proprietor, for example, Martin. Martin shoreline house is no exception regarding the matter of the government attempting to take it. Eminent domain is the 5th Amendment of the protected right of the legislature to take exclusive genuine property for a public reason in return for compensation to that proprietor (Kubasek, Nancy, Brennan, Batley, Browne, 2015). In the state of North Carolina, famous area procedure must be halted if the proposed taking does not meet the prerequisites for public purpose or public necessity (North Caroline Eminent Doman Law). While “eminent domain can be challenge it cannot be challenged in light of the fact that reasonable compensation was not

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

Taylor suffered serious emotional distress, part of which was fear for his and Mya’s life which led them to fleeing their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray’s continuous intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor because (1) Murray intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Taylor; (2) Murray’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) Murray’s conduct directly caused Taylor’s emotional distress; and (4) Taylor’s emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-45 (Mass. 1976); Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 696, 706-07 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000); Cady v. Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340-41, (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).

City of Charlotte, 93 F.3d 1241, 1254 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1116 (1997) (based on a comprehensive survey of circuit case law, the court concluded that "a plaintiff's testimony, standing alone, can support an award of compensatory damages for emotional distress"); Williams v. Trader Publishing Co., 218 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2000). Emotional harm may manifest itself, for example, as sleeplessness, anxiety, self-esteem, stress, depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional stress, excessive fatigue, or a nervous breakdown. Physical manifestations of emotional harm may consist of ulcers, gastrointestinal disorders, hair loss, or

On January 16, 2016, less than two months into her tenancy, Plaintiff threw a party with a neighboring tenant. Several tenants called Ms. Miner in the middle of the night to complain about the party and the aggressively loud noise levels coming from the halls, resulting in police involvement in efforts towards shutting down (Exhibit 5). Moreover, Plaintiff received a personal email from Ms. Miner two days later, notifying her of the complaints filed and to clarify that she was residing in a peaceful residential community where the tenants do not throw or want to hear loud parties. Instead of taking accountability, Plaintiff blamed her neighbor for the disturbance in addition to minimizing her involvement.

The act of the defendant, Moore, was intentional and harmful contact took place causing apprehension among the plaintiff. The apprehension was not caused by negligent behavior. The apprehension the plaintiff felt started with a threat following a previous meeting between the two teams and escalated into a physical altercation (Cotten, 2013).