Tort & Regulatory Risk

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.

In the case “United States v. Pearson”, Exide Technology, the largest maker of automotive batteries,

Furthermore, Aloe could also make a strong argument by imposing strict liability in tort on Toys R Us for personal injuries that result from selling a defective product with design defect that is unreasonably dangerous to the consumer without proper testing and compliance with Federal safety standard for such products. Aloe could also appeal for both compensatory and punitive damages for the loss which could be economic (such as lost income, medical expense) or non economic (such as pain and suffering and loss of consortium, meaning the loss of someone’s active presence and enjoyment in their life).

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

Torts can fall under 3 categories intentional torts, negligent torts, and strict liability. Intentional torts include intentionally

Rossi Inc. is a diversified manufacturer of industrial products. In 2008, Rossi updated its asbestos litigation liability, including the costs of settlement payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through 2017 for losses incurred to date. Before 2008, the Company’s previous estimate was for claims projected to be filed through 2011. As part of the 2008 update to the asbestos litigation liability, Rossi engaged Thompson and Associates, a consulting firm, to serve as an external specialist to estimate the claims liability for December 31, 2008. As a result of the 2008 update and the external specialist claims estimate, the Company significantly

The decision of Alumina, to settle the dispute through alternative dispute resolution was a great decision. This decision allows for both parties to come together to discuss the issues at hand without the input of the public or media. Both parties decided to reach a decision through mediation. The mediator has no direct relation to either party, so able to facilitate a win-win outcome. This allowed for Alumina to safeguard their reputation and save money by not going through litigation. Ms. Bates received punitive damages and signed a strict confidential agreement. All claims were dismissed and all information remains confidential.

exposure. All municipal activities should be evaluated and facilities inspected. Court decisions and legislation that affect municipalities must be reviewed. Insurance and risk management publications should be studied for the latest information on loss avoidance. Attending courses on risk management may prove beneficial.The importance of the human element cannot be overemphasized when identifying risks. Asking employees and supervisors for their input because they are in the best position to identify risks. It is important to communicate with people in other municipalities who are involved in risk management that might have faced and solved a similar problem in the past.Obviously, a great amount of guesswork is involved in risk identification, and some potential losses may be overlooked. However, by making a conscientious effort, the most common losses can be reduced or perhaps totally avoided (Marcus, 1986).

The tort law can be traced back to the late 1500s when ancient Roman law contained rules for torts, also known as wrongful acts, that later influenced the rest of Europe in regards to civil law jurisdictions. People have been suing over torts since the beginning of time and there has not been a limit to how much money the defendant could be sued for, that is for damages. It wasn’t until large businesses decided to change the tort law to satisfy and financially help themselves. With the change that they proposed, people’s rights are still at risk and are being taken advantage of, because many are uninformed of how such corporations are abusing the civil justice system.

Since about the mid-late 1980’s many states have implemented and enforced statutes to limit tort lawsuits. Tort reform is the political term for redefining tort laws and reducing tort litigation, damages, compensation, and even amounts awarded (Quinn). The reformation of the nation’s tort system, or changing laws throughout a state dealing with injuries to a person or their property have done a lot more harm than good for consumers. While each tort reform law varies depending on the state, they all have one of the following goals in mind: “(1) to make it more difficult for injured people to file a lawsuit, (2) to make it more difficult for injured people to obtain a jury trial, (3) to place limits on the amount of money injured people receive in a lawsuit (Lane).”

BUGusa, Inc. could also be found liable for negligent or intentional torts of employees when the employer had reason to know that the employee had reasonable cause to do harm within his course of his employment. This would be contingent on Walter’s past employment history with the company as well as the information obtained by BUGusa, Inc. at his background check for employment.

The association was held liable for the damages that stemmed from the emotional distress of the defendant. The plaintiff had caused the defendant to suffer such extreme fright that it compelled him to either give up the Acme account he had been working in the service area and give to the State Rubbish Collectors Association back payment or the defendant had to become a member with the association and pay dues.

American National Insurance Co., as any other insurance company, faces with a risk of litigation and regulatory investigations including the risk of class action lawsuits, which may result in significant financial losses and harm its reputation. “In connection with their insurance operations, plaintiffs’ lawyers may bring lawsuits, including class actions, alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, claims payments and procedures, product design, disclosure, administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, and breaches of fiduciary or other duties to customers.”[2] Plaintiffs might request substantial amounts to be paid including punitive and treble damages. These damages could result in a material adverse effect on company’s business, financial condition, results of operation and reputation. For example, “American National was a defendant in a lawsuit related to the alleged inducement of another company’s insurance agents to become agents of American National. The jury reached a verdict adverse to American National, in the total amount of approximately $63.4 million, of which approximately $60.0 million represented punitive damages; however, the court subsequently reduced the punitive damages award, resulting in a total award of approximately $7.1 million against American National.”[2] Company has been facing with other various types