Phillips V. Alvarado Case Summary

According to section 26 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic.), the result of a successful plea of contributory negligence will be an apportionment of damages. So, if a defendant is a negligent without any contributory negligence by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive 100 per cent of the damage, but if the plaintiff is held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 40 per cent, then the plaintiff will only receive 60 per cent of the damage. (FoBL, 2005, p84) For instance, the case of Liftronic Pty Ltd v. Unver[10], the defendant (Liftronic Pty Ltd) was found liable in negligence but Unver’s damages were reduced by 60 per cent due to his contributory negligence.

39. Under the doctrine of ________, the plaintiff may only recover the proportionate amount of damages attributable to the defendant’s negligence

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

This week’s case study, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall as a means of protest against the policies of the Reagan administration. He was arrested by Dallas police officers and he was charged with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” In this case, it was the contention of the arresting officers that burning the American flag was an act of desecration which was punishable by law. Section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code was enacted by the Texas State Legislature, at the time when this matter was brought to trial, the parties involved were the State of Texas and Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least

UNDER ____, FAULT IS APPORTIONED; WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS NEGLIGENT AS WELL AS THE DEFENDANT, THE PLAINTIFF'S AWARD IS REDUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S PERCENTAGE OF FAULT.

In this brief, I am going to prove to you, the judges and the court, that Officer Raymond’s initial stop is objectively justified under the Fourth Amendment and the New Setonia Statute. Because the truck was old, Officer Raymond’s experience being a police officer, and Mr. Jackson’s making movements towards the glovebox while Officer Billy was approaching the car, this proved there was reasonable suspicion to stop the car. Additionally, even if Mr. Jackson’s car was not a commercial vehicle, there were enough other factors pertaining to search of the truck that made the mistake of law objectively reasonable. Based on all of the facts and the evidence listed in the case, the state of New Setonia is going to win.

In the Spring of 1984, May 23rd, felling like San Antonio v. Rodriguez was an unacceptable decision, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a suit against William Kirby, the commissioner of education, in behalf of the Edgewood Independent School District. MALDEF’s main concern was the way Texas funds public school, they pointed out the fact that he poorest districts in the state, had $38,854 in property wealth per student, while the Alamo Heights ISD, which is in the same county, had $570,109 per student. (TSHA, 2017) Furthermore, property-poor districts had a higher set tax rate that would amount to an average 74.5 cents per $100 a valuation to generate $2,987 per pupil, while richer districts, with a tax rate of half

Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

Under the provisions of the Uniform Act 41-3-1 to 41-3-8, in New Mexico, comparative negligence laws means that the plaintiff may recover, but only a certain percentage for their injuries. The court must apportion the fault with a percentage such as 50/50, 60/40 etc. Once this is done, any award of damages will be reduced by the amount of fault attributed to the

Good evening Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, and opposing counsel. Tonight you heard the testimony and evidence in Roughed Grouse High School's attempt to hide, justify, and deny their negligent actions. In order to prove Roughed Grouse High School's negligence resulting in the death of Jordan Simon, I, along with my co-counsel, had to prove our case, not beyond a reasonable doubt, but simply by a preponderance of evidence. In other words, if you were to put the evidence favoring the case of the plaintiff and evidence favorable to the defendant on a scale, we the plaintiff would have to make the scales tip ever so slightly in our favor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have done just that. We have proved to you tonight

They asserted negligent design, negligent manufacture, breach of warranty, and negligent failure to warn of inherent dangers. “The jury returned verdicts in favor of Laaperi in all four actions on the failure to warn claim. The jury assessed damages in the amount of $350,000 in each of the three actions brought on behalf of the deceased sons, and $750,000 in the action brought on behalf of Janet Laaperi. The defendants' motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied, and defendants appealed” (United States Court of Appeals,

The explanatory limits of causation may be illustrated by the following example. Supposing that a defendant damaged a small section of his neighbour’s house roof tiling following an extravagant and negligent garden fireworks display, if the claimant sought to rebuild his house entirely, it seems highly likely that the courts would hold the claimant to have contravened obligation to mitigate; with the claimant held to have broken the chain of causation. Thus, in this instance, the causation explanation justifies the principle of mitigation’s operation as an exception to the compensatory principle.

Loss of chance is known as an alternative cause of action, particularly, in cases of medical negligence. In recent cases, where actions based on causation have failed, it has succeeded. The onus lies on the plaintiff to prove negligence by the defendant and loss of a chance of a better outcome. However, a plaintiff cannot establish that the defendant’s negligence probably caused their injury. The concept of loss of chance is defined as a doctrine that permits the recovery of damages upon destruction or reduction of prospects to ultimately achieve a more favorable outcome. In one particular case, Rufo v Hosking [2002], the court found, “In order to recover damages for the loss of a chance of a better outcome, the plaintiff is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that there did exist a chance that the plaintiff would have had a better outcome had the negligence in treatment not occurred”. This is where the qualitative concept of loss of chance was described and formed.

States also implemented different procedures to evaluate the compensation and blame. Where few states incorporate comparative negligence, there are few with the contributory negligence law. These different procedures give whole new perspective to the justice, where in one state the financial recovery is affected, in other the blame can be shifted totally on minor. Having different laws begets the loop holes in judiciary and provides opportunity to defend, which sometimes results as injustice.