Negligence Case Study

This claim arises out of a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff, Debra Nathan-Nenn, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her minor son, Grey Hoffman. The Amended Complaint alleges in general that Ms. Nathan-Nenn executed a written lease to rent a house from the insureds starting on June 1, 2013. The plaintiffs further allege that starting on the day the plaintiffs took possession of the house, the drain in the kitchen sink was not working and the insureds failed to correct this condition. The complaint continues to allege additional deficiencies in the rental property such as mold growth in one of the bedrooms and in various locations of the house due to excess moisture and failure to patch exterior openings, insufficient heating, holes in the exterior walls, an unfinished deck, insufficient weather sealants, vermin in the crawlspace, frozen pipes and lack of running water. The plaintiffs further allege that the insureds have failed to address and resolve the above issues. The most serious claim is that the mold present throughout the house caused the plaintiff and her minor son to become ill.

The plaintiffs, Stroot and Watson, brought the appeal on three theories of tort liability: 1. Ordinary or common law negligence based on Landlord’s alleged failure to maintain safe and sanitary conditions in the apartments, 2. Negligence based on alleged violations of the New Castle County Code 3, 3. Negligence based on alleged violations of the Landlord Tenant Code. The jury of the trial courts found in favor of the plaintiffs on all three forms of negligence. The plaintiffs also offered testimony from several expert witnesses. The first expert witness is Dr. Yang, a mycologist and microbiologist. After inspecting Haverford Place, he stated that there was excessive and atypical mold growth in the apartment buildings caused by long term leaks. He opined the widespread mold contamination posed a health risk to tenants. The next, Dr. Johnanning, a physician board-certified in environmental and occupational medicine, also inspected and noted similar data from Haverford Place.

Citing common law which states a landlord is not liable to a tenant for physical harm caused by a hazardous condition after the tenant took possession. This was

Neil Rekun was killed while riding a motorcycle as he was hit by Carl Pelaez. According to Judge Raup, Rekun was 60% negligent and Pelaez was 40% negligent. “Under Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Act, a plaintiff cannot recover if he or she is more than 50% negligent” (238). In the arbitrary agreement between the two parties, they use the term “comparative fault” which did not include a bar on recovery if a plaintiff was more than 50%

There is a provision in Colorado law which allows tenants to withhold rental payment due to uninhabitable surroundings. Additionally, mold can cause serious physical harm and this is one of the major reasons why tenants are winning in court, they have been exposed to hazards and their health has been damaged as a result of it.

The business already has a duty to find, correct and warn of potential dangers to customers. This duty only increases when customers are walking into the store with wet jackets and umbrellas, dripping water all over hard floors. Whether or not the substance Ms. Metroplex slipped on was rainwater, the employees should have either noticed and corrected the dangerous substance Ms. Metroplex slipped on, or they should’ve warned customers, including the plaintiff, about the condition of the tile floor. Neither Ms. Metroplex nor Ms. Arlington made any mention of “Wet Floor” warning signs around the entrance to the store, and the substance was present near the entrance when Ms. Metroplex slipped. Thus, Forever 21 breached its duties to discover, correct and warn of a clear and present risk to customers. There are two potential causes for the fall: Ms. Metroplex’s cork wedges and the oily substance on the floor. We will argue that the oily substance caused the fall. The defense will argue that Ms. Metroplex’s cork wedges were the cause. A third argument could be that Ms. Metroplex began to fall due to her wedge shoes, but that she could’ve recovered from the imminent fall if not for the oily substance she then slipped in.

c) within the limits of their responsibility failed to devote adequate resources and personnel to the protection of the Plaintiff d) breached their statutory duty as provided in Police Act, and particularly s. 57 (McClure, 1990, pg. 169) In the following, the paper will discuss the negligence of the Toronto Police Service in respects to the claims mentioned above by Jane Doe. By investigating negligent misconduct, the failure of the police demonstrates how their discriminatory practices indirectly led to the victimization of Jane Doe. In order to determine whether the Defendants owed a private law duty of care to Jane Doe (who suffered a loss) revolves around the parallel of the foreseeability of risk and a special relationship of proximity

RP disclosed she is not associated to the facility and have no back ground clearance. The RP stated she spoke with caregiver Larry who explained that he always arrives at 8PM and that the administrator's father supervises the resident for 2 hours. The RP disclosed that the resident is placed in bed at 6PM and left in bed for more than 20 hours at a time. Subsequently the resident walks around without shoes on tile floors with a walker wearing socks (resident is a known fall risk). The resident was continent of bowel and bladder and never wore diapers prior to admittance. The resident was placed in adult diapers and never assisted to the toilet. The RP discovered the resident didn't receive a shower for 2 weeks and only received bed bath a few time a week. The caregivers excuses were concern for the surgical wound and fear the resident would fall. According to the RP, the resident received one hour of physical therapy a day. The therapist would have instructed the caregivers in transporting resident if asked. Prior to the resident fall on 6/10/16 he was fully independent living on his own and able to make his own decisions. The resident's soiled linen and bedding was left outdoors for 3-5

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

After taking into account the facts and the laws applicable to the case of Mr. Newhouse, the issue of whether Lion’s Paint Store owed Mr. Newhouse any duty of care; it is clear that under Michigan law governing premises liability, the highest of care is owed to an invitee who enters upon a premises by either expressed or implied invitation for the purpose of commercial benefit to the premises owner. The slip and fall incident resulting in Mr. Newhouse sustaining injuries falls under a breach of legal duty by Lion’s Paint Store to ensure the safety of invitees from unreasonable risk of harm therefore, the paint store is liable for negligence on their part by failure to inspect the premises at reasonable times to determine circumstances that

My thought on the situation is that Steve has a right to call Billy out on his faults. He can complain that Billy has failed the statute or ordinance, which can prohibit the leasing of a structure that's not in compliance with local building codes. The building clearly is not safe for Steve to live in and should be fixed immediately because of such hazardous dwellings. He has the right to hold Billy responsible for his failing to fix the heater as well as his leg injury, because yet again Billy's property is not safe. Billy was made aware of the faulty stairs and the heater. The implied warranty of habitability requires a landlord who leases residential property to ensure that the premises are habitable-that is, in a condition that is safe and suitable for people to live in-at the beginning of a lease term and to maintain the premises in that condition for the lease's duration, which Billy has once again failed to do with the heater and the stairs. Steve has two options; he can surrender

On 12/25/16 at approximately 2037hours, my partner Officer Thebeau #8402, and I, Officer Harrell #3441, were dispatched to a residential burglary call at 193 W. Hammond St. The comments of the call stated the reporting person, (Heidi Robles), just arrived home, and the home was ransacked.

I spoke with David Architectural’s attorney and she is going to ask Judge Brennen for an additional thirty days to decide how to proceed on the fourth-party complaint against SCB and Arkema. The reason being she received roughly 70,000 project documents from Power and the plaintiff in the last two weeks and has not been able to get through them all. I asked what she is looking for and she said her consultant believes the undercoating was not applied to the railings. As a result, she is looking to determine if SCB directed that the undercoating did not need to be applied. I responded, “Even if we did, which I doubt, so what? You still would not have a negligence claim because of the Economic Loss Doctrine.” In response, she stated that she is looking to see if there was something that brings the claim within the exceptions. I told her the facts of the claim do not fall within the recognized

Landlords are required to meet both building codes and health codes as outlined by the state of California. If a rental unit has inadequate sanitation due to plumbing problems, it will likely be considered uninhabitable.

The scenario is a horrendous string of coincidences that resulted in a tragedy. However, every party carries some responsibility for the eventual double amputation. This paper examines each of the parties, their possible liability and how that is covered by negligence law.