So what is a whistle blower? According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a whistleblower is an employee who turns against their superiors to bring a[n] problem out in the open. BusinessDictionary.com states that a whistle blower is a person who discloses improper or criminal activity within an organization. Finally, under Sarbanes Oxley, “A “whistleblower” is someone, usually an employee, who reports an employer who has broken the law to an outside agency.” Under this very important act, whistleblowers are protected by federal and state laws. Employers may not retaliate against them for reporting misconduct.
The negligence was certainly made by the driver , but in what capacity. Proximate: This form of negligence requires foreseeability of what happened Causation: The basis upon which a lawsuit may be brought to the court Negligence: would be carelessness except the following did occur: The tortfeasor was under a duty to use due care. The tortfeasor breached that duty of due care. The tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of injuries or damages. The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages.
Occupational violent crime- for whatever the reason for the action, any crime such as battery, rape, or homicide during the course of employment. If a manager physically assaults an employee or guest on the property of a workplace, this is classified as an “Occupational violent crime” Employee- an employee with an employment related relationship (present or past) with the victim of a workplace-violence incident. Outsider- an individual with no relationship of any kind to a victim of a workplace violence incident or the victim’s employer. 2.Defend or refute the following statement: Employees who commit violent acts forfeit their rights and can be dealt with accordingly. Employee rights are in place for the protection of both the violent employee an employee victim and a regular employee.
One needs to consider whether the sinking of the ship was an isolated event that was easily corrected, or whether it was a serious flaw that would require costly repairs. What needs to be answered regarding the flaw is whether the vendor, Captain Jack Sparrow, should have been aware of such a flaw; that is, was the flaw as a result of a patent or latent defect. If such defect was latent, was it known to the vendor. At common law, Davey Jones should also consider the principles of product liability, a branch of negligence law, arguing that Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. sold him a defective product that was not fit for its intended and known purpose. Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship.
INTRODUCTION In their day to day lives and interactions, human beings commit wrongs that may cause harm to others whether intentionally or unintentionally as a result, they are made to compensate the injured party or individual who has suffered a loss or injury due to their conduct. These wrongs that human beings commit against each other on a daily basis are called torts. A tort is a private or civil wrong that is independent of a contract. This essay will with references to decided cases, critically discuss the foundation of tortious liability and the purpose of law of torts. NATURE OF A TORT The nature of a tort can best be understood by making a distinction between a tort and a crime.
Business Regulation Simulation Business Law/531 Althea Portlock, Danielle Moore, Heather Randall, Nicole Schiffer, June 22, 2012 Jana Allen Introduction Legal Issues Strict Liability- a tort doctrine that makes manufactures etc., of a defective product liable for the damages caused by the defect (irrespective of fault) Product Liability-the liability of manufacturers, sellers, and others for the injuries caused by defective products. Negligence - a tort related to defective products in which the defendant has breached a duty of due care and caused harm to the plaintiff Regulatory Compliance- The company was cited by EPA for violation of discharge norms. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) levels were extremely high.
In the end, I had an employee who had violated the NDA, Aaron Web, and another employee who had broken the law for tdhe company, Jamal Moore. * The first step taken in the case was to figure out what the problem really was and what issue applied to the problem. My decision on this was, “Whether you should use the information obtained by Jamal Moore to discipline Aaron Webb for violating the NDA.” Personally, I was worried that if I knowingly used the illegally-gathered information from Jamal against Aaron, would be unethical and pose a possible legitimate for Aaron against the company. * The second step was to identify the stakeholders. It
When you retire to the jury room, you will be asked two questions. First, did the negligence of either R.C. Brahman or Mahal Amrit proximately cause the occurrence in question? If you answer yes, then you will be asked to find the percentage of responsibility attributable to the negligent party. Remember, the occurrence in question is the damage to the bull, not the wreck between Kelly Hereford and Mrs. Amrit.
ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE Is the Case an Appropriate One for Punitive Damages? It is the responsibility of the trial judge, in the first instance, to determine whether the case is appropriate for punitive damages, i.e. whether the question of punitive damages will be submitted to the jury.' The main focus of that determination is the nature of the defendant's conduct. The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY The tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, Employer and Employee. Or Owner of vehicle and Driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. Vicarious Liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. It is also referred to as imputed Negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to imputed negligence include the relationship between Parent and Child, Husband and Wife, Owner of a vehicle and Driver, and Employer and Employee.