Palsgraf V. Long Island R. Co. Case Analysis

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

Facts: In 1952 the United States was in a conflict in Korea, and the demand for steel

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the student’s purse was searched after the principal had reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse since she was caught smoking in the bathroom. The court decision in this case concluded that teachers are acting as agents for the state and are therefore allowed to search if they have reasonable suspicion. Students do have the Fourth Amendment right as all people in America have. However, student’s expectation of privacy has to be balanced with the needs of the school to maintain the educational environment. Schools do not have to obtain a warrant to search, but must have reasonable suspicion in order to search a student’s person or property.

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

A major problem that many representative democracies had, and still have, is securing minorities rights within a system ruled by the majority of that country. This is when the term modern pluralism comes into light. Modern pluralism is the idea that having a large number of parties within a government will create more power in the system, which ensures that not a single group will contain total control.

Facts: E.L. Mottley and his wife, Annie E. Mottley, (plaintiffs) were passengers on board a train operated by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (defendants). Both the plaintiffs and the defendant are citizens of the state of Kentucky. The plaintiffs, while passengers on board a train, were injured in a train wreck on September 7, 1871. The defendants offered the injured plaintiffs a free pass from the defendant’s railroad company in exchange for the agreement that they would not bring suit upon the defendant. The plaintiffs accepted the free passes which would be renewed yearly. Several decades later, in 1906, a law was passed by the U.S. Congress banning free railroad passes. This was passed in order to prevent bribery on government workers and officials. This caused the defendant to refuse the plaintiffs’ renewal of their free passes in which they then filed suit for specific performance in the Circuit Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

DeLong v. Erie County is focused on the issue of whether or not a municipality is liable if it fails to perform in a non-negligent manner when said municipality assumes a duty to a particular person.

of the arrested persons. Some have had their Fourth Amendment rights violated due to searches that were erroneous

The action of conduct of the railroad guard is not considered a wrong or invasion of protected interest to the plaintiff because the wrong by the defendant was caused to the man who rushed to catch the train. What the plaintiff must show is a wrong to herself and not a wrong to someone else; therefore since the wrong is not caused to her, the company cannot be liable for negligence. In addition, the man was not injured or put into danger; instead the action of the railroad guard was to safe the man from falling. Therefore, the only wrong caused was a violation to a property interest (the safety of his package). In brief the plaintiff was suing the company for the wrongs caused to the package owner since she did not suffer any wrong. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. Proof of negligence in the air will not do.

In the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), the company chose to set employment standards in which the

Analysis The legal issue in this case is presented as who is held accountable for the incident. Being that the conductor was unaware of the package, there is no act of negligence. Negligence is described as when one party fails to act reasonably and harm occurs, even though that party did not intend to