Mr. Goudreau Summary

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

Cross-Complainants are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Cross-Defendants had no intention of completing the reconstruction improvements within the amount approved by the Bolanos’ insurance company. With the Home Improvement Contract, Cross-Defendants submitted an estimate for $275,718.08. When the Bolanos’ insurance company only approved repairs for 251,569.81, Pedro Luis Hidalgo made representations that all insurance companies approve less but that Cross-Defendants know how to obtain the difference between the requested and approved amounts.

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.

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.

Background: Based on the given complaint, on the 28th of March in 2014 the Plaintiff, Linda D. Daugherty suffered an injury on the property of Rauleigh J. Ringer at 814 N. Liberty Street, Alexandria, IN. She is claiming her injury was a result of negligence spawning from the actions, or lack thereof, by Mr. Ringer and Casual Lifestyles Realty, Inc., in which the connection of these three parties has not been clarified with certainty within the claim. The Defendants, by counsel, Mark Maynard, and, pursuant to Rule 12(E) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, moved for a more definite statement of the Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mark Maynard argues if said Plaintiff could amend her complaint that is supposedly so vague and ambiguous, the newfound clarity would help the defense frame a response to said Plaintiff’s claim. No other information could be

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed in Kane County, Illinois involving an incident at Johnny A’s Third Rail Pub, a local pub owned by the Insured, Beslidheje, Inc. Mr. Tefik Ashiku owns and operates the Insured corporate entity. The pub operates out of a building owned by the co-defendant, Junaid Zubairi. Plaintiff’s lawsuit alleges negligence against both Beslidheje, Inc. and Zubairi, claiming that the stairway had insufficient or inoperative lighting at the time she fell.

The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming that it was vicariously liable for his assault by Cerantonio. The defendant argued that since Cerantonio was engaging in unauthorised conduct, the defendant could not be liable. The matter in contention was whether the assault was conducted in the course of employment.

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.

1) Plaintiff is a construction company that did construction work for defendant in New York City. Defendant failed to pay the entire balance of work done by plaintiff. Plaintiff sued for damages. Jury found for plaintiff

The case I choose for this assignment is Szeles v Vena 321 N.J. Super. 601 (1999). In this case the tenant, Paul Szeles sued his landlord, Joseph Vena for injuries he sustained on the property he was renting. The property is a single family dwelling in West Keansburg. The issue in this case was if a tenant who has exclusive use of a single family property under an oral lease is responsible to make repairs to the property or if it is the landlords responsibility to make those repairs under the Warranty of Habitablity.

For this assignment, I chose to read Samuel Gompers and Organized Labor in America written by Harold C. Livesay and published in 1978. Samuel Gompers is the subject of the book, which discusses his role in organizing the American Federation of Labor. Livesay evaluates Samuel Gompers struggle to create the American Federation of Labor. He describes the struggle the American Federation of Labor went through for survival. Basically, he tells the story of how Samuel Gompers worked his whole adult life to create the American Federation of Labor.

Uniqua’s left cheek was served nerves on Uniqua’s face causing permanent paralysis of the left side. Also, she developed a permanent 3 inch scar on her face. By relating the damages to that of Bates (Guardian of) v. Horkoff 4, defendant will have to pay for general damages of approximately $8,500 for permanent scar on the face and the loss of sensation and movement of left side. Bob will also pay for the underwent extensive physiotherapy.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

There was no defence for defendant because there was no any voluntary assumption and contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Plaintiff didn’t fully understood and took the risk by himself and not even he contributed himself to take that injury.