The Case Of An Investigation Of Defense

Certain criteria should be considered when looking at a negligence case. Questions to be asked are; did the defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff? Did the defendant breach that duty? Did the plaintiff suffer a recognizable injury? Did the defendant’s breach cause the plaintiff’s injury (p.114, Miller)? The answer to all of these questions is yes when looking at this particular case. The defendant had a duty to report the chromium leaks to the people it could have affected. A breach of that duty occurred when the plaintiffs were not informed of the chemical in their water supply. The plaintiffs then suffered multiple injuries of various degrees because they were not informed of the chemical in their water. Because PG&E did not inform the people in the area, these injuries did occur.

Forensic science evidence admissibility is when the forensic evidence can be used in the courtroom against a person. Any forensic science evidence that is admissible will be used in courtroom against that defendant. All types of evidence are shown to a judge or a jury to me a case against a suspect. Evidence that can be considered admissible, is any document, testimony, or tangible evidence used in a court of law. There are four types of evidence. The four types of evidence are demonstrative, documentary, real, and testimonial evidence. An example of demonstrative evidence is

The W.R. Grace Company, Riley Eannery, and Unifirst Corporation were prominent factories in Wobourn. Jan speculated they were to have illegally dumped a dangerous carcinogen known as TCE into the ground, sewer, and water systems of the Woborn community. These poisons were thought by Jan, and the community, to have polluted two water wells that acted as a water supply for the community. Many of the people who worked at the factories experienced many medical problems such as cancer and died at young ages. Community members experienced numerous medial problems such as flu-like symptoms, memory loss, cancers, leukemia, burning eyes, and skin, and death. The water over the years was said to have gone from natural, to smelling, to dark and dangerous.

The firm took the case and went to work. The first hearing ruled that Beatrice Foods wasn’t to be held accountable, just W.R. Grace Company,

There is certainly not enough space to examine all twelve stories presented in Lerner’s book in this paper, and they are all shocking—both in terms of the level of exposure to toxic chemicals and the questionable choices of corporate and government officials—but a few stories stand out.

DuPont a well-known and once very well respected chemical company, is now known for their irresponsible business tactics and the way they dealt with the chemicals onsite, and the pollution it caused in our air and our drinking water. DuPont purchased a large piece of land about sixty acres in New York, West Virginia, known as a small town and consisted of a lot of farming and irrigation, cattle, and production of crops. The DuPont case started when a local farmer in the community exploited the footage of the stream nearby being polluted with chemicals from the DuPont plant. The local towns people, were fed up with the situation in their town and the injurious ways it was affecting their cattle, so they set up a meeting with a corporate defense

Plaintiff, Kaycee Land and Livestock, opened a case to hold Defendant, Roger Flahive, personally liable for (contamination) damages after an agreement made by Flahive’s LLC, Flahive Oil & Gas. The District Court of Johnson County presented the case to the Supreme Court of Wyoming to determine if Flahive could be held personally liable. Kaycee Land and Livestock contracted with Flahive Oil & Gas in order to use the surface of the land to raise the Plaintiff’s livestock. Kaycee Land and Livestock claims that Flahive Oil & Gas contaminated the surface area, leaving it useless for Kaycee Land and Livestock’s needs. Flahive Oil & Gas does not have any assets. Therefore, Kaycee Land and Livestock wants to use general corporate veil-piercing principles

Under s 51(vi) of the Constitution, the Cth can make laws with regard to ‘the naval and military defence of the Cth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Cth’. As s 51(vi) is interpreted to be a purpose power, the test for whether a certain law is within thus power is whether it is proportionate to achieving the stated defensive purpose . The test is ‘elastic’ as the scope of s 51(vi) depends on whether Australia is at war or peace. The outcome turns on judicially noticeable facts about the existence and character of hostilities or threats. In agreeing with Brian Galligan, it is clear that during times of war, the defence power waxes to an extent where it allows the Government to become unitary. Therefore, in order to survive, the Commonwealth must “do anything which can contribute to its defence” . However, as examined later on, there is some debate as to what extent the Commonwealth may be able to go to when implementing measures to protect itself.

When complaints about the quality of water began just weeks after the Flint River was “online”, both Governor Walling and emergency manager Early responded with claims that the water was safe to drink. In the following months, when Flint’s water tested positive for harmful pathogens and TTHM (a chemical linked to liver, kidney and nervous system disorders as well as several types of cancer), DSWD offered to forfeit a 4 million dollar reconnection fee and supply water for the citizens of Flint once again. This offer was ignored by emergency managers and city council, who instead decided to hire a water quality consultant to remedy the situation. (“How the Flint Water Crisis Emerged” slide 11 and 13). Throughout this crisis, one poor decision after another was made by city officials that ultimately caused the crisis in Flint. Residents and news media alike have voiced their distrust of these leaders and have called for resignations at all levels of city and even state

A defense medical examination is a physical exam conducted by a doctor of the defendant’s insurance company on the plaintiff. It is vital that before going through this process, the client listens to the advice of their lawyer. If I was the paralegal this is the advice I would give them. The first piece of advice I would give my client would be to remember why you’re there. The defendant’s insurance company hired this doctor to examine the client. If the examination does not go well, the doctor will be testifying against the plaintiff. The client should be polite and cooperative with the process. The client should also be aware that at all times during the examination, they are being judged. The client also needs to keep in mind that they

in the self-defense doctrine of the United States of America. Additionally, both of these principles are referred to numerous times through an array of Supreme Court rulings interpretations of both laws, as well as court decisions.

As the CEO of Kardell Paper Company, it has been brought to my attention that there is a link between the sonox contamination in the Cherokee river and high incidences of miscarriages, birth defects, and respiratory disorders in the community (Brooks, 2007). According to Kardell’s legal counsel, there is not sufficient evidence tying the two together, but there is a possibility that the sonox is the cause of the health problems that is on the rise and could be proven later. In 1985 a water quality test was performed by a student which strongly suggests that Kardell is a main contributor to the contamination and pollution of the Cherokee River by sonox discharge (Brooks, 2007).

This memo addresses “safe” levels of exposure for pregnant women and families contemplating having children, as well as the health effects on pregnancies of the citizens exposed to the chemical spill. Additionally, this memo discusses the broader context of public health in the community as it relates to environmental safety and justice.

In May 2000, around half of Walkerton’s 5,000 residents fell severely ill and seven people died when cow manure washed into a well. The extent of the water pollution in the small Canadian town was concealed from the public, people drank from their taps and the result

In Massachusetts, parents in the city of Dracut were concerned about environmental factors that could expose their children to toxic contaminants. For example, Trichloroethylene (TCE) is thought to cause autoimmune complications as well as congenital heart defects in children. The Massachusetts Tracking Program researched potential health outcomes due to TCE contamination. The Dracut health board’s research helped to quell concerns of community parents regarding TCE contamination, who were particularly concerned that TCE might increase their progeny’s risk for contracting Type 1 diabetes or heart defects. To further protect the public, government officials took steps to contain the site where the trichloroethylene exposure originated.