The types of intentional torts implicated here are battery and fraud. The former (fraud) is defined as “the intentional and harmful or offensive touching of another without his consent.” The latter (fraud) is defined as a “knowing misrepresentation”; a false statement of material fact that was knowingly or recklessly made by the defendant with the intent to induce reliance by the plaintiff. Punitive damages, which are designed to punish the defendant and deter all other potential defendants in the marketplace, are awarded to plaintiffs above and beyond their actual damages. In cases of intentional torts (i.e., when there is findings of wilfullness, maliciousness, or recklessness), punitive damage awards will be upheld provided they meet the ranges/ratios of punitive damages to actual damages, set forth in recent U.S. Supreme Court cases (BMW and State Farm). APPLICATION: Here, there was substantial evidence that the defendant, Motel knew of the widespread existence of bedbugs in their rooms.
Chestnut contended that Mr. Reeves was terminated for inaccurate record keeping. Actions taken against Mr. Reeves were not in compliance with the federal employment laws: prima facie case of discrimination, sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to disbelieve the respondent’s nondiscriminatory explanation and the respondent’s explanation for his decision was pre-textual. Mr. Reeves was able to prove that the stated reasons was not the real reason for his discharge and age discrimination was the real reason for termination. REEVES v. SANDERSON A prima-facie case is a lawsuit that alleges facts adequate to prove the underlying conduct supporting the cause of action and thereby prevail. Sanderson stated that their reason for terminating Mr. Reeves was due to inaccurate record keeping.
Opinion(s) of the Court Delivered Joseph E. Spruill, Jr., Judge Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court that Marrill was not eligible for an elective share of Dorothy’s augmented estate. 3. Facts Dorothy and Marrill were married in July 1988. Dorothy experienced a multiple amount of illnesses throughout her marriage. Dorothy also experience different types of abuse from her husband.
Issue What is considered misconduct under New Mexico law? Rule The New Mexico Supreme Court explained in the case that misconduct is in the disregard of an employer’s interest and acting in deliberate violation of the standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee. The court also stated that they do not recognize misconduct as inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure in good performance. Analysis According to the New Mexico Supreme Court’s definition of misconduct there most certainly be a blatant disregard of the employer’s interest. In this case Natalie did not show much if at all any blatant disregard to her employer.
Conclusion: Although the contract was probably voidable since it was based upon mutual mistake, it is also voidable due to Bob’s misrepresentation. III. Sarah v. Bob B Issue: Was this contract based upon a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake? Rule: A contract based upon a unilateral mistake is enforceable against the mistaken party unless the non-mistaken party is aware of the mistake. Analysis: Sarah did not see Bob’s ad.
The answer denies the allegation. Paragraph 4 of the complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent, but the answer denied the allegation. The defendant believes it was comparative fault and assumption at risk. Paragraph 5 of the complaint alleged that the defendant is severally liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and for the resulting damages in the Squealer I was defectively design. The answer denies the allegation.
Defects in marketing have to do with the improper instructions and failures to warn consumer of latent dangers in the product. Product liability is usually judged as a strict liability offense. Strict liability wrongs are not concerned with how careful the defendant was. Converted to products liability terms, a defendant is liable when it is revealed that the product is defective. It is immaterial the
If an employer fails to meet its duty to conduct an adequate background check and hires an unfit employee who uses his or her position to inflict harm on others, that employer may be liable for negligent hiring. Here in this case, the delivery company hired these deliverers, one of whom had pled guilty to a charge of fourth degree burglary with an intention to commit theft from a dwelling. This is clearly a case of negligent hiring without a background check. Also liability for negligent hiring is limited to situations in which an unfit employee harmed others while on the employer’s premises or while using the employer’s property. In this case, delivering a new washing machine to the home of a customer indicates that the theft was conducted in the working hours and on the employer’s premises.
Negligent Tort Tort is actually termed under law of tort, which clearly defined it as those situations or conditions where the illegal conduct of one party causes harm to other that is party A had to face loss due to unethical or wrongful deed of party B. Tort can be either negligent that is unintentional or intentional. (Larson, 2003).Examples of intentional torts is fraud, defamation, offence, insult, assault or interference etc. For example, during a business meeting an employer suffers from a reputation loss or insult due to the wrong deeds of another employer, to whom he had fight. Negligence tort refers to the conditions under which the law will hold an individual, who has a duty of care to another individual; that is legal personnel will grab the person who is responsible for any harm or damage his negligence may have caused the injured party.
Negligence as evident in the article is a component in cases of injury, proving that a company, person, or any other entity failed to act in a competent way and thus caused harm by lack of expected or reasonable action to obtain damages for the victim. Such personnel fail to help the injured to cover their medical bills, pain, suffering, and lost wages. Gross negligence is far serious than just simple carelessness. Whereas regular negligence is viewed as a professional falling below his expected care standard, gross negligence is a total failure to demonstrate care that implies a willful disregard or recklessness for human life and safety. A malpractice on the other hand occurs when a doctor, a hospital, or any other medical professional, causes an injury through omission or negligence to a patient.