Pichelman vs. Barfknecht 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

The Queens District Attorney’s Office charged the Swinton’s with first-degree assault, claiming the parents knew or should have known the diet would endanger IIce’s life. Also they had failed to seek medical attention. The opposing side’s lawyer argued that IIce being premature was the main cause of IIce’s medical state. The Swinton’s argued they did care for their child, they did not intentionally harm her and should not be deprived of their parental rights. The jury of the New York Supreme Court found the Swinton’s guilty of first-degree assault as well as lesser charges of reckless endangerment and endangerment of the welfare of a child to the first-degree.

SUPPORT FOR ETHICAL ISSUES: As stated in the case, Burlington did not “question the jury’s determination that the motivation for these acts was retaliatory.” Inferring that this is an admission of guilt by Burlington, one can conclude that a deliberate business decision to retaliate outweighed any legal ramifications.

I believe that the hospital should take the blame for the damages and suffering that Kelly Niles endured. This decision reflects the quality of care that Niles received while he was at the hospital and also correlates to his physical status. The neurosurgeons stated that his status would have been better if they got to him sooner and were able to treat him in time, but due to the negligence throughout his whole treatment he is left with the ability to only move his eyes and neck. The fact that there was doubt that Kelly would survive the next few days after his surgery supports my decision that what the court ruled was reasonable and appropriate. Kelly “remained in a coma for 46 days before gradually regaining consciousness.” Kelly is totally disabled and his condition can’t ever be improved with medical attention or surgical treatments which furthers my final decision (“Niles v. City of San Rafael,”

Before the trial even started, the entire court house was evacuated due to the fire alarm going off. After the building was cleared, we were allowed back in and returned to normal operations. I stayed for half a day of the trial in this case. My first initial observations were that the lawyers from both sides were rather friendly with each other and talked as friends. I also noticed a difference in the way the lawyers performed during the trial. ASA Williams was very calm and collected, very well versed, and did not appear to react in any negative manner when the defense made an objection. In my opinion, PD Scarbrough did a mediocre job during this trial. She appeared to be nervous when she spoke to the judge or the jury, and also when the prosecution made any objection she appeared to get flustered rather quickly. In my opinion, the judge handled the trial extremely well and I feel that she ruled correctly when she made her

Do you agree with the findings of the Court?  Why or why not?  Do you agree with the one-year rule?  Did Mills act ethically?

When this case goes before a jury, what decision do you think it will reach?

The central issue in the mock trial was whether the payment of life insurance from Prime Global Insurance group to Raven Temple, the wife of the late Aubrey Temple, was warranted. Aubrey Temple purchased a life insurance plan from Prime Global Insurance on March 16th, 2011. Prime Global Insurance’s policy is illustrated clearly in their terms and conditions that the one-million dollar payout to the policy holder’s beneficiary on the condition that the death of the individual must not have occurred by suicide within two years of enacting the contract. My contribution to jury deliberations were to synthesize the evidence to most accurately depict the events that passed, and to come to a conclusion whether Mr. Temple died by suicide or accidental death, and if his death occurred before the two-year time period as outlined in the insurance company’s policy. The prosecution and defense painted a story for the jury and called on witnesses including Ms. Temple ¬– the wife of the late Mr. Temple, Mr. Usher – former business partner of Mr. Temple, the transcript of a sworn testimony by the medical examiner of Mr. Temple, a detective who arrived at the scene, the limo driver who was driving Mr. Temple from that night’s Veteran Ball, and an individual who was driving behind the limo before Mr. Temple was ejected out of the vehicle.

Issue: Did the Crystal Bar, the defense, breach its duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Harrington, the plaintiff, from the harm of another patron of the bar? (citing elements of Nevin v. Carlasco, 139 Mont. 512, 514, 365 P.2d 637, 638 (1961))

21. The malicious and negligent conduct of Piper Reed was reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, harm to physical well-being and invasion of personal space and therefore warrants the imposition of punitive damages.

Elements of negligence exist here: Ms. Weinfeld did not have proof that the son of the Welling’s’ vandalized the party center although she put up flyers directly targeting the workplace and school specifically related to the Welling’s. Under these conditions, Ms. Weinfeld wrongfully targeted the Welling’s family since she could not identify the person whom vandalized her business.

Common law requires that a plaintiff prove (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by that breach. Hayden v. University of Notre Dame, 716 N.E.2d 603, 605, (Ind. App. 1999), (citing Wickey v. Sparks, 642 N.E.2d 262, 265 (Ind.Ct. App.1994)). For the purpose of this memo, only whether or not a duty was owed to Suzy Ann by WSLZ will be looked at. To determine if there was a duty Indiana courts use the totality of the circumstances test and, “all of the circumstances surrounding an event, including the nature, condition, and location of the land, as well as prior similar incidents, to determine whether a criminal act was foreseeable.” Ellis v. Luxbury Hotels, Inc, 716 N.E.2d 359, 361 (Ind. 1999), (quoting Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968, 972 (Ind.1999)).

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

As in Scott v London and St Katherine Docks, the plaintiff was passing the defendant’s warehouse and six bags of sugar fell and hurt the plaintiff. To escape from the liability, the defendant had to prove he is not negligent. In order to escape from the liability, the same thing needed to be done by ABC ltd.

No, there is no negligence on the part of marjorie because marjorie took all the possible care to save his child and did the best of what she could do to sustain his voice.