Teresa Gaslight Production Case Summary

The area in private law which is involved includes tort law of negligence. This case involves the alleged perpetrator (Woolworths) exploiting and interfering with the rights of the alleged victim and also failing to fulfill their duty of care towards the customer, in this case Kathryn Strong. Tort law of negligence entitles the alleged victim to take legal action against the alleged perpetrator which was successfully met in the Strong v Woolworths Ltd as woolworths failed to provide an adequate cleaning system to recognise any spillages resulting in Woolworths being accused guilty of negligence.

15. They don’t have any alternative plan, the “Just in time method” based on fact that dealer place order to manufacturing assembly and after assembling they shipped the order by federal express. It has only few outcomes i.e. it reduces inventory cost, carrying cost, and warehouse. In contrast draw backs are large, no customer complain center, ignore of offshore manufacturing product, dealer technical support.it is not feasible for implementation. 16. Donna lacks political ability which hinders the process of working with top management. she felt she had no support from top management. According to theory concept: Power 1is define as the potential of individual to influence another individual or group. Influence in turn exercise of power to change behavior, attitudes or values of that group or individual Organizations are political entities, political conflict over scarce is inevitable, giving the challenge of managing in contemporary organization. There will be more political conflict if organization has more interdependence, diversity, and resource scarcity. There are prevention factors that help to reduce the amount of conflict. When people have shared goals and values (due to leadership or strong culture) a common perspective about how critical resources should be distributed and critical contingencies handled is more likely. In contrast there are precipitating factors

Ever since Angela has become the 100% owner of Wheeler she has concerns about some possible negative goodwill that Wheeler might have. She is also worried that the corporation might not be employing the best practice to dispose of hazardous waste; she fears that a personal liability might arise from that practice. Similarly, Angela does not like the idea of the Texas franchise tax that Wheeler is subject to. Because of the above concerns Angela is contemplating the idea of liquidating the corporation and reorganizing the business as a sole proprietorship.

Charleston Community Memorial Hospital proved a corporate negligence doctrine in the case (Pozgar, 2013). The court found a jury could reasonably find negligence due to the fact that staff did not test for circulation as often as needed, it was concluded that skilled nurses would have been aware of circulation problems, informing attending staff promptly (Law School Case Briefs,2013). There was no argument that the defendant, the hospital in this case, failed to review physicians work, or require a consultation. A jury found that this failure was within reason to assume a negligent act was performed, or not performed in this case (Law School Case Briefs,2013). A person goes to a hospital and within reason expects the hospital to treat them (Pozgar, 2013). There is a legitimate basis in this case to hold the hospital vicariously responsible for torts of its employed staff (Law School Case Briefs,2013). In Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, the jury found negligence by both the doctor and the nursing staff, this was supported with evidence during the trial (Law School Case

After the incident, Jones inquired for medical care multiple times. Here, admittedly, the Prosecution was right about one thing. Nurse Robin Rodgers did not meet the standard of care. But, they were wrong about another. Nurse Robin Rodgers was not reckless, but rather, she was negligent. Contrary to being reckless, negligence is acting without the knowledge of the consequences and risks.

Then, she can create a position for a volunteer. Not all volunteer positions would work. Sometimes she has to work with volunteers and staffs to figure out the problems and make any adjustment as needed. When I ask Helen about how she motivates volunteers, she mentioned that volunteers have their own motivation to do the volunteer work. The way she gets volunteers to be more engaged is keeping in touch with volunteers, ensuring that supervisors engage with volunteers, recognizing volunteers and having events to show her appreciation to volunteers. She also provides support to volunteer to help them find a right job or make any changes to ensure that they feel comfortable to do their

This structure will provide the company with adequate protection while also establishing safeguards for each member and his or her personal assets. In this arrangement, each member will be removed from the consequences that could result from another member’s misconduct or negligence. I place particular emphasis on this fact because I know that all three of you are personal friends outside of the work environment, and I do not want there to be hesitation on anyone’s part regarded the business for fear of damaging the friendship.

Issue: Should Arnold and Sylvia Barfknecht have been convicted of a negligent tort against Betty Pichelman?

In the contract the couple asked for someone to pick them up from the airport. The receipt demonstrates that Tina Tippett failed to meet the contract requirement.

Case specifics provided explain how, Gail Davis, a previous employee of Diana Ross is bringing suit against Ms. Davis claiming financial and emotional harm due to Ms. Ross committing alleged libel. Ms. Davis was employed by Ms. Ross as an executive assistant up until the point where she voluntarily resigned from her position. In a letter drafted and published by Ms. Ross she made reference to a list of previous employees, stating she would not recommend these individuals based on her experiences and she implied that she had terminated these listed staff members. Ms. Davis was adamant that she was not fired, but rather chose to leave on her own accord. Additionally, the allegation stems from the idea that the letter guides readers to believe

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

     If what the person in question did met the requirements of what the standard of care calls for, then there has been no account of negligence. There are four main points that actually make up negligence. There must first be a situation in which the standard of care must be given under the given circumstances. Failing to follow the standard of care begins the case of negligence. After not satisfactorily completing the standard, there is an apparent setup for harm to the patient resulting from this failure to meet the requirements of care. When an injury is inflicted on the patient, that relates to the standard of care being violated, and that seals the case. Those are the four ingredients needed to complete a case of negligence (Cazalas 18).

Ultimately Myra must establish that Cardware did not exercise a reasonable amount of care and that she was injured as a result. Myra must also prove that Cardware was in some way negligent.

Despite the general principle excluding liability for omissions, liability may arise in certain exceptional circumstances. Although these situations where a duty may arise on the basis of an omission are difficult to classify, what is usually required in all of them is some element of proximity. This may be created in a number of situations which will now be looked at. In addition, in such cases, the factors for establishing a duty of care (forseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable) laid down in Caparo will also need to be looked at.

Advise Shelby on her potential liability as well as any potential remedies she may have available to her