Tort Immunity Case

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

Note cases that may apply. Mcdonald v. City of Chicago, District of Columbia v. Heller.

Unlike the testimony in the Gittemeier case that showed there was public traffic on the streets, here the street in question was a restricted construction zone that no traffic was allowed on. Unlike the Gittemeier case, where the court used traffic as a way to show public utilization, a court here would use the lack of traffic as a way to show restricted utilization and the fact that the incident happened within the construction zone further restricts who is authorized to be on those unfinished streets. Unlike the Gittemeier case, where realtors and buyers were allowed on the neighborhood streets without restrictions, here even guests of the residents of the community had to obtain an access code to gain entrance to the streets of the neighborhood. Unlike the Gittemeier case, where a court found activity by realtors and buyers to show unrestricted admittance, a court here would use the guest access codes as restricting unwanted people from the community and limiting admission to the community to only approved people and even if the guests did enter the community they were restricted from the unfinished construction work zone. Unlike the officer in the Gittemeier case, where he was granted immediate entrance to the neighborhood, here the officer was forced to stop and input the community issued access code to gain entrance to the streets of the community. Unlike Gittemeier, where the

There is an epidemic of baseball spectator injuries. With an estimated 1,750 fan injuries per year, there is serious cause for concern regarding the safety of the citizenry in Gallatin. Because there are a number of professional, semi-professional, and recreational baseball parks, including a minor league park in Sen. Gallatin’s district, it is important to consider enacting legislation to address this issue. Some states, such as New York, have created the “Baseball Rule” through judicial precedent, whereas others, like New Jersey, have statutorily codified the rule. Further, states, such as Idaho, have altogether not adopted the Baseball Rule entirely. The purpose of public policy should be to maximize public utility,

Quality Immunity could be a double edge sword in many case scenarios. Therefore, often times it is hard to say whether quality immunity should be granted to government officials based off of actions they choose to take. Therefore, in this short paper I am going to research and analysis the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding. In my finding I will address the issues of whether the school was justified or not in the search of Savannah Redding, whether qualified immunity should be given to government officials, and whether I agree with the finding in the case.

Facts of the case: Decades of economic decline, led the city of New London to declare a “distressed municipality”, with the unemployment rate doubled, the city of New London approved an “economic revitalization” plan, and authorized a non-profit organization; New London Development Corporation (NDCL) to take the development plan into action. Pfizer announced a plan to build a research facility in the Fort Trumbull area, which was home to 115 private properties. These properties are being taken by New London, and just compensation is to be given to the owners. Susette Kelo (Plaintiff) sued the city of New London and NDCL (Defendant) on grounds that the ‘public use’ restriction in the Fifth Amendment was being violated by the takings of private property. The defendants argued that the development plan was an opportunity to attract new businesses opportunities to the area, although it wouldn’t be open to the public, it would serve public purpose. A first trial prohibited New London from taking the properties, but an appeal from the State Supreme Court granted permission to take the properties. A second appeal by Kelo to the Supreme Court, was affirmed by 5-4 in favor of the State Supreme Court.

Question 5: Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in City of Chicago v. Morales, what protections of the individual do you think must be included in an ordinance proscribing loitering?

745 ILCS 10/3-102(a). In Nichols, it is clear that the District new that a judo tournament would be taking place at the same time as the crane was scheduled to be delivered onto their property. Therefore, there actions of not making the delivery site safe, causes them to be liable for Mr. Nichols injuries. Because of this, the Defendants argument that they made a discretionary policy decision should be voided, since the District had a duty to make sure that Mr. Nichols would be safe while he delivered a crane, once they made the decision to perform construction at Stevenson High

I remember that three men were seriously injured during that construction project. One man lost a foot when a large crane jumped when it lost tension on its lift cable, and one of the outrigger pads came down on the mans foot, who was standing to close to the crane. This accident could have easily been prevented if only the area immediately around the crane had been roped off, or if someone responsible had been watching to make sure no one got too close to the crane while it was in operation.

Id., at 1562—1563. The District Court then ruled that there were three justifications for holding the City liable for the harassment of its supervisory employees. First, the court noted that the harassment was pervasive enough to support an inference that the City had “knowledge, or constructive knowledge” of it. Id., at 1563. Next, it ruled that the City was liable under traditional agency principles because Terry and Silverman were acting as its agents when they committed the harassing acts. Id., at 1563—1564. Finally, the court observed that Gordon’s knowledge of the harassment, combined with his inaction, “provides a further basis for imputing liability on [sic] the City.” Id., at 1564. The District Court then awarded Faragher one dollar in nominal damages on her Title VII claim. Id., at

The landowner's liability would be determined by several factors: 1. Did the landowner fulfill its duty to warn? 2. Did the landowner know of any dangers? 3. Did the landowner take reasonable precautions to correct any safety issues? If the landowner did not meet these requirements, then the landowner would be held liable. "A landowner's duty to a business invitee to exercise reasonable care in guarding against a dangerous condition may be satisfied by either correcting the condition, or, in those circumstances where it is reasonable

Understanding your auto insurance policy can be difficult. Many people don’t have the ability or the patience to read through pages of fine print, and it can be hard to understand what your policy covers.

Debbie can sue Sandra in tort for her actions. The torts against her are “intentional infliction of emotional distress; intentional acts that amount to extreme and outrageous conduct resulting in severe emotional distress to another.” (business law, 127) Sandra caused Debbie severe emotional anguish, emotional suffering, and stress due to Sandra’s actions while Debbie gave her trust in running her business. Debbie hired an investigator and discovered that Sandra had been taking cash out of the register, stealing inventory, and had started a competing business selling medical supplies at a discount over the internet.

This case is certainly defendable with a strong opportunity to have the jurors decide that the Builders are 51% or more responsible for any negligence. 49 of the 100 responding jurors (49%) found no negligence against the named defendant, and 67 of the jurors (67%) found the unnamed third party (the Builders) negligent. Favorable jurors questioned the due diligence of the Builder when evaluating individual lot soil conditions and determining the appropriate foundation for each property.

This week the reading material was on Tort Law, which has a lower burden of proof of evidence as in criminal law. Torts can result from negligent, or intentional action. The case of Mrs. Lieback a vibrant 79 year old senior citizen who became went against Mc Donalds’s in a lawsuit, due to coffee served from them caused her third degree burns after it accidently fall into her lap, while adding sugar in cream. The argument was who was at fault and how could a cup of coffee cause severe injuries as in this case within seconds. Even though, the plaintiff Mrs. Lieback played a role in her own injury, should Mc Donald’s still be held liable? After all the evidence was presented in the court with many testimonies from physician indicating if the temperature was lower on the coffee it would not resulted