Pg&E Erin Brokovich Case Essay

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

Sparkle Company is a Nigerian diamond mining company. Sparkle is a joint venture, 50 percent owned by Shine and 50 percent owned by Brighten. Both Shine and Brighten are U.S.-based companies with their functional currency being the American dollar. Sparkle Companies functional currency is that of Nigeria, being the Naira. During 2009, Sparkle had several transactions with its joint venture owners and outside parties. The details of Sparkle’s transactions are three loans, three expenditures, and one revenue stream. The loans the company took out were $1 million from Brighten, $1 million from Shine, and 300 million Naira from a local Nigerian bank. The expenditures

Who knew that Flints water could be deadly? Everyone should be allowed to have the same clean water to bathe in, drink, cook with, and to have fun in. Unfortunately, residents in Flint could not do this for quite some time. These residents were bathing and drinking from this water before the founding of high lead levels in it. Not only was it because of the high lead levels, but the pipes were very old as well. Due to actions made by the city council this caused a lot of problems for the residents in the city of Flint. This effected children, pregnant women, and the elderly the most. Many lawsuits were filed against the city of Flint. It was so serious to the point that Governor Snyder had to declare a state of emergency. This took place January 5th of 2016. High levels of lead in the water and old pipes lead to lawsuits, the sickness of Flint residents, and the city of Flint not doing their job.

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

The breakthrough came in the form of a former employee who tells Erin that he while he was working at the plant he was ordered to destroy many of the old documents, however he kept some of them and turned them over. The documents included memos from the PG&E corporate office to the Hinkley plant, establishing that corporate officers has knowledge of the illegal dumping of contaminated water into those unlined pools (tcm web site).

Brandon Barnak is a 16 year old white male who is currently before the court for charges of petit larceny, grand larceny and two counts of unlawfully entering a vehicle. On May 4, 2016, Brandon appeared before the Honorable Judge Alotha C. Willis in the Portsmouth Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court with his guardian and Attorney Washington. Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Kara Cooper prosecuted the case.

Shakespeare Inc., a private publishing company issued its F/S on March 20, 2012. There were several accruals and events that the management of Shakespeare is considering to determine if they should be recognized or disclosed in Dec 31, 2011 F/S. In my opinion, the important things to focus on subsequent events are the period they effect and if their influence is material or not, so that in conclusion, the F/S are fairly presented.

The Pat Parker case is about a lawyer who started his own firm concentrating on writing reports and conducting political opposition research for political candidates. This particular case is about how Parker devised a research report for one particular political candidate then two years later, some trial lawyers wanted to buy the research on the Republican Attorney General. Parker was unsure on how to proceed knowing that this could potentially jeapordise the political party's candidate or even worse, he could be arrested for soliciting the information. Would Parker be violating contract law? Would he be infringing the copyright law? Would he be violating campaign statutes and other codes of ethics?

Incidents such as the May 2000 contamination at Walkerton, Ontario, which resulted in widespread illness and loss of life, have raised public awareness of the risks of poor water quality. After debate over the issue of water export, the Canadian government acted to prohibit bulk water removal from natural

Erin Brockovich is a single mother of 3 who is struggling for work after a car accident left her unemployed. She turns to a law firm in hopes of suing the individual who had wrecked into her. She had hopes of just getting enough money to pay off her medical bills. However, Brockovich ended up losing the case and was left with nothing. That's when she demanded Ed Masry, the owner of the law firm, to help her find a job since

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. The objective of the strategic analysis was to identify which products were world-class in terms of “competitive position and potential,” products which could become world-class, and products which have no hope of becoming world-class.

The attempt to link the harm to the behavior of the defendant produced its share of successes and failures for the Schlichtmann team. Not only did the plaintiffs have to prove that the corporations contaminated the water, but they also had to show that the contamination caused the leukemia and the other health problems. To do this they enlisted the help and expertise of numerous doctors and specialists. Naturally the defending side recruited their own set of experts. As in any case, each side is going to have an expert who will refute the testimony of the other side’s expert. This is a normal part of arguing a case, but can cause confusion and complication on the part of the jurors.

I don’t think it is ethical for Mrs. Thompson to sue defendants for her injury. Because it’s not a manufacturer mistake rather it’s her own ignorant behavior to put her finger before reading the instruction carefully. No a generally known danger should not be a defense to a product liability. It should be a strict liability as a defense to a product liability lawsuit.

The EPA is also being negligent by how long they are taking to clean up after the spill.