Negligence Case Summary

Plaintiff, Deborah Burke, submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant Strickland Watson Pierce, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should not be dismissed because she exhausted all the administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and being terminated during the investigation. Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009); Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corr., 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001); Franceschi v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2008). Further, the conduct she suffered in the workplace was sufficiently severe to qualify as a sexually hostile environment. The Court should deny the motion.

Taking as true all the allegations of the Amended Claims, dismissal is appropriate for three independent reasons: (A) Dr. Stout cannot show that his purported reliance on the purported representations was reasonable or justified; (B) Dr. Stout has not alleged the existence of sufficiently specific representations necessary to sustain his claim; and (C) Dr. Stout’s claim is barred by the economic loss rule. These three defenses are discussed in order in

Accenture, LLP, “Employer”, and American Zurich Insurance Company, “Insurer”, by and through their undersigned attorneys, Tony D. Villeral, esq. and Franklin & Prokopik, P.C., hereby submit the District of Columbia does not have jurisdiction over the subject claim pursuant to D.C. Code § 32-1503.

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%

This loss involves a middle age female who was boarding the insured’s shuttle bus at the Louis Armstrong Airport in New Orleans, LA. On 1120/11, the insured operator, a new employee, failed to properly place the shuttle bus in park, causing the bus to shift resulting in the plaintiff briefly loosing her balance. According to the insured operator, the plaintiff never fell and disembarked the shuttle with no injuries.

Jerry Hargrave, plaintiff, was convicted of the attempted murder of Shirley Mae Gill (the victim), in a trial by the court under Va. Code. 1950 § 18.2-51. The plaintiff and Ms. Gill, his common-law wife, had been drinking in the earlier part of the day in question. Sometime later, they disputed about the plaintiff moving out of the home they shared to begin a relationship with her sister. At which time victim refused to surrender the plaintiff’s property. Following, the plaintiff left the premises, returning shortly after with a rifle in hand standing 10 feet away from victim, and then shooting a bullet into a washing machine that was three feet way from the victim. The plaintiff was sentenced to a term of 4 years in the State penitentiary.

Ms. Chaker to separately create duplicative sets of discovery to each of the Defendants is unnecessary here. Given their trustee-beneficiary relationship, defendants are of an aligned interest in this matter. Ms. Chaker seeks to assert her rights against both Ms. Lindstrom and Ms. Lindstrom-Blech under the same claims, and would provide identical discovery to each defendant even if they were served separately. Thus, even if Ms. Chaker separately served Defendants with discovery defining “you” and “your” for each individual, but otherwise identical, Defendants would provide the same responses as already furnished, and would most likely answer provide answers applicable to Defendants collectively.

Findings from a 2012 Study of Medical Negligence Claiming in Scotland revealed that patient support and advice groups find that when a complaint is made to the NHS in relation to a medical injury a defensive attitude tends to be adopted in response to such complaints. According to Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, Chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, this defensive attitude is what leads to claims being raised against the NHS. He stated that the current clinical negligence regime is what prompts defensiveness within the NHS and that this problem will persist as long as the fear of litigation and stigma of settlement remains. In the literature reviewed there seems to be a general consensus that the requirement for the claimant

There has been an error in the court system. Apparently, the court has associated this date of injury with a different issuer. We have been in constant contact with the applicant’s attorney to correct this issue. The employer on the Application for Adjudication of Claim clearly listed Salinas Tallow Company, LLC as the employer, but for some reason, the court had a different employer listed. As soon as we fix this error, we will file a Notice of Representation. I will then file an Answer to the Application for Adjudication of Claim, specifically asserting our statute of limitation

An important concept that I learned from the HCA 6280 is tort of negligence which was totally a new subject to me. According to Harris (2008), plaintiff must prove four elements of tort which are “duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages” (p. 138) The plaintiff will be compensated only if he can prove that all the four elements of the tort are true to his case. I learned that duty means that physicians are required to provide patients with standard care and based on that responsibility they are required to provide standard care.Organizations have the legal responsibility to only employ staff who prove to have clinical competency. Otherwise, in case of an adverse event the organization or physician will be liable for breach of duty. Causation

Dr. Stout’s seventh claim seeks recovery of damages, including costs, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages, and is pled in the alternative under the legal theory of negligent misrepresentation. Dr. Stout cannot demonstrate the existence of the elements necessary to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation and accordingly, dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6).

In an effort to guard against, Bad Faith litigation, Kinsale has instructed their claim staff, to refrain from documenting their claim files with any type of claims analysis. Kinsale is of the opinion; Bad Faith litigation is occurring with greater frequency against insurers. Consequently, insurers are under a constant threat by the plaintiff’s bar, looking to expose carriers to liability, by identifying any missteps in their claims handling processes. Therefore, as a protective measure, Kinsale restricts their claim staff from posting any type of claim analysis and-or opinions based statements in their claim files, avoiding the litigation discovery pitfalls of misinterpreting the claim staff’s written communications. Conversely, the lack of

negligence, what will be key is the subcontractor agreement provisions with regard to applicable law and venue governing the agreement, as well as service of process.

In this introduction of the case, we see that there was a question on the floor being asked about if Wilhelm acted negligently by failing to remind Flores of the dangers of working with beehives. I read this case twice and speculated on if Mr. Curtis Wilhelm acted negligently in failing to warn Flores of the dangers of functioning with beehives because John Black provided Santos with a protective suit to have as you’re picking them up. So, after realizing Wilhelm nor his compliance that was John Black, didn’t mention how difficult it is to operate beehives, he did act negligent in failing to communicate with Santos on the dangers of working with beehives. “The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they

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.