Keshia Warnken Case Project Professor Howard Hammer Case Project Part One- Table Part Two Theories Negligence/Hospital Negligence Negligence is a tort. “Tort” means a legal wrong, breach of duty, or negligent or unlawful act or omission proximately causing injury or damage to another (Ind. Ann. Code $ 34-18-2-28).Negligence is defined as a failure to exercise that degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under like circumstances; or as conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others; the negligence theory of liability protects interests related to safety or freedom from physical harm(21 Ind. Law Encyc.
Newcomers are particularly vulnerable to the disease because the exposure to dust seems to build up immunity among the residents. Bud became quite ill and brought suit against the car manufacturer that invited him for its failure to warn him about the valley fever phenomenon before he came out to the testing grounds. Answer the following questions, and use cases and theories from the text to support your arguments: Was there negligence in the failure of General Motors to warn Bud? (15 points) Discuss all defenses General Motors may have. (15 points) Does strict liability in torts apply to this situation?
WIRETIME, Inc. has interfered with an existing contractual relationship that Janet has with BUGusa, Inc. when they offered Janet a job with their company. This means that WIRETIME, Inc. can go after BUGusa, Inc. for damages because of losing Janet with their company. Since BUGusa, Inc. has specific knowledge of the contract that was broken, WIRETIME, Inc. actively interfered with the contract that was broken, and WIRETIME, Inc. caused losses to BUGusa, Inc. there definitely has been a tort committed. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions. The liabilities BUGusa, Inc. may have with Walter’s actions are intentional tort of employee and negligence of employee.
Therefore, there is a situation of Undisclosed Principal, where an agent acts without disclosing either the existence of a principal or the principal’s identity and the agent is directly liable to the third party. If Newcorp’s senior management is concerned over his public display of his personal views as a basis for his termination the judgment is erroneous. However, there might have been some apprehension over the agency relationship to third parties because principals have both contractual and tort liability for certain acts of their agents (Jennings, 2006). The contract liability of a principal is not only determined by either what he intended or by the limitations agreed to privately by the agent and the principal, but also the third parties have certain contract enforcement rights depending on the nature of the agent’s work and the authority given
57 Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 798 (2014) Contributory negligence is defined as the injured party that can be partly responsible for the part they played in the incident. This means that the injured person should not recover damages when it appeared that the incident could have been avoided” but for” the plaintiff’s behavior. The plaintiff should not ask for others to exercise more care than he would from himself.
Hairston v. Alexander Tank and Equipment Co. 311 S.E.2d 559 (N.C. 1984) FACT -Plaintiff: Bettye Hairston (John Hairston’s wife) -Defendant: Haygood Lincoln-Mercury. Inc (Haygood) and Alexander Tank and Equipment Co. -After John Hairston purchased a new car from Haygood, the left rear wheel of his car came off. Since there were no places to park his car, he stopped his car in the far right lane. However, the truck crashed Hairston’s car and he was killed because he was standing between his car and van. The plaintiff claims that the wheel came off the vehicle because the lug nuts had not been tightened on the wheel studs.
Question 14 In strict liability offenses, the prosecution must prove: Question 15 A steals B’s car. The police find A with B’s car, but the car has been mostly disassembled and sold. At his arraignment, A pleads nolo cotendere. The nolo contender plea will: Question 16 The right to a speedy trial: Question 17 The city of East Cleveland had a municipal ordinance that regulated who could live together as a family in a single-family dwelling unit. Lnez Moore, an elderly grandmother, was convicted of violating the ordinance because she had two grandsons who were cousins living in the same house with her, and that living arrangement could not be considered a single family under the definition of family in the ordinance.
We all have a responsibility not to injure others, and when we breach that duty, we commit a tort. Torts can be intentional, as in the case of civil assault and battery, false imprisonment, etc., or unintentional, which is covered by an area of the law we call negligence. As you might suspect from the statement above, torts are the civil equivalent of criminal concepts like criminal assault and battery or criminal false imprisonment. Criminal law addresses a civic duty we owe society, while torts point to a civic duty we owe someone else specifically. The one thing you want to keep in mind with torts is that when an employee brings a tort claim against his or her employer, that employee may be entitled not only to compensatory damages (remember, to make them whole again) but also “punitive damages,” designed to punish the offending party and discourage others from doing the same.
Contracts made by mentally incompetent persons can be void, voidable, or valid. If a court has previously determined that a person is mentally incompetent and has appointed a guardian to represent the person, any contract made by that person is void—no contract exists. Only the guardian can enter into a binding contract on behalf of the mentally incompetent person. 8-8. Licensing Statutes.
Effective Risk Management Law/531 December 5, 2011 Effective Risk Management A tort is defined as a civil wrong between people and/or entities (Cheeseman 2010). There are two types of torts. The two are intentional and unintentional torts. An intentional tort is when there is intent to cause harm on another. An unintentional tort is when a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions due to negligence (Cheeseman 2010).