Plaintiff Van Dunk Research Paper

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.

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

The book Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee takes place in the Tang Dynasty in a region of China called Chang-ping. The time in which the book took place was a very Confucian society due to the resurrection of the Confucian Educational System. This society emphasized beliefs such as the importance of the government, education, filial piety, and the 5 relationships. It believed that the gentleman was the embodiment of all these characteristics and was held to the highest standards. Legalism was the practiced legal system at the time. In the legal system, it was expected that to those who were accused of wrongdoings were to be tortured into confessing their crimes and the punishments were very severe. One of the ways Legalism worked was that when one was suspected to be guilty, the confession would be tortured out of them, rather than searching and comparing all the suspects. The society of the time also practiced and believed in spiritual entities. They 'd pray in temples for answers to their questions and the response they 'd get were taken seriously. These were the common practices of the time. This novel focuses on Dee Jen-djieh, or more commonly known as Judge Dee. He is the magistrate of Chang-ping and is famous for solving many successful and puzzling cases. He is an honest, wise, benevolent, justice-loving magistrate, although some members of the public believe he is too rash in judgments and often jumps to conclusions. Judge Dee is a good magistrate because he is

clause (ii), and it is simply too unlike the provision's listed examples for the Court to believe that Congress intended the provision to cover it. In the Courts opinion In our view, the provision's listed examples— burglary, arson, extortion, or crimes involving the use of explosives—illustrate the kinds of crimes that fall within the statute's scope. Their presence indicated that the statute covers only similar crimes, rather than every crime that “presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). If Congress meant the statute to be all encompassing, it is

Troy Gregg was charged with committing armed robbery and murder. The jury found him guilty of both and sentenced him to death. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, appealing that his capital sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Court's earlier ruling in Furman v. Georgia (1972) which struck down state systems that afforded juries sweeping discretion in imposing the death penalty would spell the end of capital punishment in the United States. Many states, including Georgia, however, responded to the Furman ruling by passing new death penalty laws. The Georgia General Assembly, however,

Regarding the billing cycle name, obviously, guardians will pay the current fee and the following 2 weeks fee after the current week in advance.

Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee is a translated Chinese mystery story of a judge who investigates three murder cases. While he is solving the cases he sometimes used dreams, fortune telling, and ghosts to help decided on the case. According to the preface, “The law permits the judge to put the question to the defendant under torture, provided that there is sufficient proof of his guilt.” (Judge Dee, p. XVIII). When Judge Dee is in the process of solving the cases he uses torture to get a confession out of all the suspects he interrogates. Since the Judge is using ghosts, dreams, and fortune telling for ways to help him decide the case, it is possible that he will torture an innocent person. A concern for the common people is that he

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by intentionally discriminating against him under both disparate impact and disparate treatment analyses and whether the TVA appeal to the District Court erred in each of these analyses could be legally supported to reverse their decision FindLaw, 2011).

Codelfa Construction (Plaintiff) had a contract with State Rail Authority NSW (Defendant) to excavate the tunnels for the railway in New South Wales. The contract agreed to complete the work in assured dates and finish it within 130 weeks, to finish work Codelfa were suppose to work three shifts a day and 7 days a week; initially Codelfa Construction was working accordingly. The work was to dig a tunnel so offcourse it was very noisy and caused some vibrations which were annoying to the surrounding residents which led to application quite a few application of nuisance and after a while Codelfa Construction had an injunction where they were forced to reduce the work hours by two shifts a day and not working on Sundays. The problem started here as the working hours were reduced so Codelfa Constructions was not able to finish the work in the set period of time which was given according to the contract therefore Codelfa Construction’s budget did exceed than mentioned in the contract and they needed more time to finish the work.

In Winnipeg Condominium versus Bird Construction, the tort law focused on negligence. As Justice La Forest indicated, the construction of the building resulted in a defect which presented a potential for physical damage and a possible danger to the public. While there was no mention of any involvement of an engineer as a defendant in the case, if the actions of an engineer would have been in question, then that engineer could also have been named as a defendant. However, the negligence tort was being directed primarily at the general contractor in this case.

In the film, “A Civil Action,” the attorney on the side of the plaintiff's, Jan Schlichtmann, is defending the families, including the Andersons, who lost their beloved children to Leukemia. In the court case, “Anderson and all vs. Beatrice foods and Grace,” the plaintiff’s believed the contaminated drinking water from the city wells was the root cause of the leukemia. At first, Mr. Schlichtmann did not want to take the case, stating there was no value to it. He even stated, “The odds of a plaintiff’s lawyer winning in civil court are two to one against,” (1). Nonetheless, he later discovered the true value the case withheld. In the case, Jan simply wanted compensation for the victims of the contaminated drinking water. Grace and Beatrice,

and injuring the Plaintiff with no warning, breaching the reasonably established agreement how the Plaintiff was to help only with Transporting of said Household items, with the Plaintiff’s Truck and Trailer only. Defendant Benny Hans Sorensen’s Negligent instructions and the Defendant Gaden Griffin’s Negligent Actions caused the Plaintiff’s Permanent Damages, adding injury to the Plaintiff’s existing Disability, with no care and lack of consideration of Plaintiff’s injury, especially immediately after the Plaintiff’s injury while the Plaintiff was moaning and complaining about how heavy the said 330 lbs Appliance was and walking in circles and holding his back, neck, and shoulder. The Defendants’ gross actions and negligent actions

UNDER ARIZONA LAW, THE MALONES HAVE A VAID NUISANCE CLAIM AGAINST HERRERA AND MUST BE UPHELD SINCE: (1) HERRERA KNEW AND REALIZED THE CONDITION OF THE POND WOULD CAUSE INJURY TO MARIA MALONES LEG AND POSSIBLE DEATH, AND (2) MARIA MALONE DID NOT APPRECIATE THE RISK OF DANGER PRESENT WITH THE CONDITION OF THE POND, BECAUSE OF MARIA MALONE 'S YOUTH AND LACK OF REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE.

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.

Mr. Elliott is not a strong witness. He is unfamiliar with OSHA regulations, including OSHA regulations requiring consultation with a registered professional engineer when the excavation exceeded 20 feet. He is not familiar with tabulated data Mr. Elliott also admitted that he did not ask anyone from NTS to be there for the removal or ask for an instruction manual. He also didn’t get a trench safety plan, admitted to not complying with the requirements of the contract with the city of Bryan, and did not conduct an investigation after the incident. He did not know what ANSI was. He never reviewed the excavation policy. He does not know what NIOSH is.