Wilson vs Pringle

In this case a school student Bryar, from Heidelberg Technical School in Victoria suffers an injury to the right eye during class due to another student firing a blow pellet using a rubber band. This caused Bryar total loss of sight of the eye. Although majority of the class was firing blow pellets it was Mr Keyte’s responsibility as the supervising teacher to ensure the safety of each student. The jury claimed that Mr Keyte saw the class misbehaving yet had no intentions of doing anything about it. The student was successful in this trial and the appeal to full court of Supreme Court of Victoria was dismissed. The defendant then appealed to the High Court who then said that he owed Duty of Care to the student to take responsible care for his safety and in failing to discipline the class was a breach of this duty. In other words, he did not act

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

In their appeal, the defendant argued that injuries caused by body-checks are an inherent risk of the game of hockey. Since hockey is a contact sport and those who participate in the sport consent to the inherent risks of the sport’s contact, actions that result in civil liability in most places do not do so in within the realm of contact sport. The plaintiff, through his participation in the sport, they argue had consented to the risk. Therefore, in the defendant’s minds, the case didn’t consist of any triable issues of material facts and thus they were entitled to a summary judgment by the district

The appeals court ruled that there was no evidence to show that the defendant’s conduct was willful or wanton or in reckless disregard to safety.

During the annual Ely Tigers v. Dilard Panthers football game, the game was decided at the end of the 4th quarter during a touchdown scoring catch. The wide receiver, Donnell Wilson, caught the ball in the end zone to score. It was a clean catch in the right place at the right time that resulted in the game-winning touchdown.

(2) Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant's conduct was willful and wanton in injuring plaintiff.

The student 's motion for summary judgment was granted by the court and dismissed Drakers claims against the students for defamation and libel per se. The students and their families then had to file another motion for summary judgment regarding Draker’s remaining claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and negligence. Once this happened, Draker filed her third amended petition alleging the students only for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence and gross negligence as to the parents. Eric Goldman states, “the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because under TX law the cause of action is a gap-filler, and there was no gap given that the defamation doctrine putatively governs these facts.” Along with her third amended petition, Draker filed a motion for continuance. This motion would give her more time to look into the facts of her remaining claims. This motion was denied by the trial court. Along with the denial of Drakers motion, the court granted the Schreibers ' and the Todds ' motion for summary judgment. Draker argues that the trial court made three mistakes. These mistakes, as listed in the case are (1) granting summary judgment in favor of the students on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) granting summary judgment in favor of the parents on her claims of negligence and gross negligence; and (3) denying her motion for continuance and

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The defendants wanted to apply reasonable principles in search of specific performance of the contract. The disposition of the immediate motion for partial summary judgment and objection was controlled. “The court found that although the doctrine of mutuality of remedies may be alive and well in Virginia in actions at law for damages, that was not the case where, regardless of a lack of support of remedy at the time the contract was created, complete performance may, if revealed, afford a party specific performance of the contract for the sale of land.”

Thus, the court determined that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:961, 40:962 could have no application in the prosecution of a person for the mere status or condition that might possibly arise unintentionally or involuntary. The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the judgment that revoked the suspension of two concurrent 10-year sentences for violating the conditions of his probation.

Issues: Throughout the trail process on behalf of the court the inquiry for exceptions to the charge inaccuracy developed regarding instructions. The appellant was seeking a claim based of the defense of his

involving Xander L, the prosecution decided upon the formal disposition because of the type of

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

“We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” Known by many, this common phrase has few words, but a intense meaning. In Ernest Hemingway’s short story, “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” the overcoming of fear is shown throughout the story. Francis Macomber and his wife Margaret Macomber are on an African safari with a man name Robert Wilson. Hemingway portrays Francis Macomber as wealthy and beautiful, yet cowardly. Macomber's wife Margaret also young and beautiful, but seemingly dissatisfied with her husband of eleven years. Robert Wilson is portrayed as a fearless man that has little regard for anyone but himself. The story is focused around Francis Macomber’s cowardly actions and his attempt to become