Lion's Paint Shop Case Summary

2. The outcome of this issue is governed by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) Outrageous Conduct Causing Severe Emotional Distress. The elements of this cause of action are (1) the wrongdoer's conduct was intentional or reckless, that is, he intended his behavior when he knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result; (2) the conduct was outrageous, that is, as to go beyond all bounds of decency, and to be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community; (3) the conduct caused the emotional distress; and (4) the emotional distress was severe.

We have had further discussions with Mr. Ashiku, Mr. Zubairi, and Ms. Kristen Finkensher, the bartender on duty on the night of the occurrence. Their statements are consistent with the facts stated in our prior report. In short, on the night of the incident, the City of South Elgin was hosting its annual festival, Riverfest, near the pub. There were light towers located throughout the festival grounds, which illuminated the surrounding buildings, including the pub. Plaintiff came into the pub, ordered one beer and, at some point, left the pub. An unknown patron then alerted Ashiku and his bartender that Plaintiff had fallen near the bottom of the stairs. Plaintiff refused assistance from the bartender including an offer to call an ambulance and left in a vehicle driven by her friend. The lights above the stairs were functional and the village’s light towers brightly illuminated the stairs. The bartender described the plaintiff as being about 5’8” tall and weighing about 300 pounds. She believes

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

In your report you mentioned there was smashed banana on the plaintiffs foot, did you also notice banana on the floor or on the mats? Furthermore, why did the banana display not have mats or carpet completely around it? The answer to this question would establish if there was banana on the floor and why the store only put slip mats in front and carpet behind the display. In addition, this question establishes the store did not safe guard the sides of the display.

C. When the plaintiff, Joeli,entered in the dressing room, the plaintiff saw that he screws on the mirror was rusty, and it wasn 't properly hung. Illustrating that the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, Defendant, The Connie’s Costume Shop, and DOES 1-10, had constructive knowledge of the hazard because it should have known

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.

Mr. Alvarado approached my client suddenly after running a red light. The negligence of your insured caused Ms. Tellez to collide into Mr. Alvardo’s left side of the door after Mr. Alvarado ran a red light. Ms. Tellez bags deployed, causing great damage to her car. See Photographs, attached as Exhibit A. The two-car collision occurred suddenly and without warning.

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

Hobby Lobby Stores is a chain arts and crafts store around the nation. The owners, which is the Green Family, based a lot the their business and primary rules of their Christian faith. They have filed a court case to not provide birth contraception for their employee’s benefits for health. They feel birth contraception is unmoral and goes against their religion, which is what bases their crafts store. The Greens sued Kathleen Sebelius, who is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, on September 12, 2012 for the requirements of providing birth contraception. The court allowed their request of not providing this benefit to Hobby Lobby’s employees.

Elements of negligence exist here: Ms. Weinfeld did not have proof that the son of the Welling’s’ vandalized the party center although she put up flyers directly targeting the workplace and school specifically related to the Welling’s. Under these conditions, Ms. Weinfeld wrongfully targeted the Welling’s family since she could not identify the person whom vandalized her business.

To maintain an action in negligence, the Plaintiff must assert that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of the duty. Further, in slip and fall claims in Maryland, the Plaintiff must prove that the accident was directly caused by a hazard on the premises of the store; the owner either created

Additionally, to determine reasonable care, it must be determined if an unsafe condition existed. Jury Instructions: 35. Reasonable care can be determined by the length of time an unsafe condition has existed. Id. Length of time can be considered by a “just spilled” drink. An owner is liable if a drink “just spilled” when it is reasonably foreseeable a spill would occur in a shop that retails drinks, but an owner is not liable for spill that “just spilled” in a shop that does not sell beverages because it is not reasonably foreseeable that a spill would occur. See Owens v. Coffee Corner; see also Chad v. Bill’s Camera Shop. In Chad v. Bill’s Camera Shop, the court held that a spill in a camera shop is not an unreasonable risk because the camera shop did not sell drinks to spill. This is analogous to the present case. Here, the defendant did not sell drinks in the store, the store sold toys. Thus, it would not be foreseeable that the toy store

Bob discover in his sandwich, that there was a piece of metal in it and because of that he suffers a broken tooth. In Sue’s chicken roll sandwich, she found a chicken bone and she also suffers a broken tooth too. when they informed the manager, the manager blamed the supplier and decline anything wrongdoing. After hearing that my suggestion to Bob will he can either sued the Local diner or the supplier, but in Sue’s case, she should get her tooth repair at her own cost. In this particular situation, they both suffer from similar injury but the fact is Bob’s tuna sandwich contain a foreign object but Sue’s does not. Sue’s chicken sandwich contained chicken bone and chicken bones are natural byproduct part of the chicken. My suggestion to Bob will be he should go after the supplier and under the UCC Sec. 2-314 “implied warranty” Subd. 1 where it said if the byproduct that is not fit to consume, food or beverage then we can apply the implied warranty. In Bob situation, the injury caused by the byproduct which was not a natural byproduct, so Bob can bring an action against the

Is Jack Sprat’s injury (ie severe allergic reaction) the result of the negligence of Smithy’s Fine Jewellers (Smithy’s) – the supplier, and can a clause excluding liability from negligence be enforced?