Thing V La Chusa 48 Ca. 3d 646 Summary

Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

Enclosed please find a copy of the 08/29/17 letter from Bruce Schonberg as well as a check made payable to the Monroe-Woodbury CSD c/o Benetech in the amount of $30,000.00. The check number is 1072 and it is dated 08/28/17.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

Key Facts: Plaintiff and defendants went on a hunting trip. Plaintiff explained them safety rules and instructed them to be careful when shooting. However, while hunting, defendants fired in Plaintiff direction, injuring him in his right eye and face. It was unknown which pellet was fired by who. The plaintiff brought suit for negligence against both defendants.

For example, in Snyder v Phelps, Snyder was able to obtain expert witnesses that testified that the actions of the Westboro Church caused his diabetes to worsen, which is measurable by a change in blood sugar levels.3 However, it would be impossible to definitively determine that it had physically affected him without isolating every factor in Snyder's life that could affect his blood sugar level. Without multiple trials and isolation of other variables in Snyder's life, it would not be possible to be sure that his health was measurably affected because of the Westboro Baptist Church's actions. In a more general sense, emotional distress, if extreme enough, should be protected through other means of the law, but it cannot be considered a harm because the damage is being done remotely and cannot physically

Gregory and Cindy Koppersmith were arguing in their yard. Cindy went to walk away to end the argument but Greg stopped her and pushed her back to continue the argument. Cindy punched him and tried to enter the house again, Greg wrapped his arms around her from behind. She bit his arm and he threw her to the ground where she fell three to four feet. He proceeding to get ontop of her and he moved her head up and down as if he was slamming it on the ground. Cindy was not moving anymore and he found that she had a brick under her head covered in blood. Even though Cindy fell by a flowerbed, he did not know that any bricks were in the grass. Greg testified that he did not intentionally mean to harm Cindy, he did not mean to toss her in that certain

Everyone has a duty to exercise reasonable care for his well-being. If the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injury, he cannot collect any damage from defendant. Plaintiff must absorb the full loss of the injuries.

Another control mechanism to be satisfied is the claimant 's proximity to either the accident itself or its immediate aftermath . Marie saw Hank after he had received medical attention, a key difference to the McLoughlin case, where the claimant witnessed the victims in an untreated condition. The fact is, Hank was clearly 'screaming in

Lucky’s parent, the Spencers want to know whether they can successfully sue the camp for Lucky’s injury under a theory of negligence. Negligence is a failure to act as a reasonably prudent and careful person is expected to act in a similar circumstances. The four basic elements of a negligence case are duty, breach of duty, causation, and harm. We will have to see if Lucky’s case meets any of these elements.

If individuals do not take guidance from a good lawyer before claiming recompense for their injury, they might miss important facts that should be stated due to their ignorance

In this case, the accident is the proximate cause of Mrs. Smith’s injuries and the medical providers are the intervening cause, as their breach of duty exacerbated Mrs. Smith’s injury to the point of permanent disability and disfigurement.

driving too fast and therefore she is responsible for her own injury and should not

The six elements discussed above will de reviewed. First, it seems the product was defective with the information provided. Second, the defendant is engaged in the business of selling that product. Eagle Tools, Inc. is the manufacturer. Third, the product seems unreasonably dangerous in its defective state. The product was dangerous beyond expectation. It fired without the trigger being activated. Fourth, Bob did incur physical harm. Fifth, was the defective condition the proximate cause of harm? This is where an argument can be made with the information provided. For Bob he believes this to be true, so he feels this is met. Sixth, with the information provided it must be assumed the product was not substantially changed from the time the product was sold to the time the injury sustained. With all the information provided I feel Bob meets the requirements to file a suit.

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