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?
The “but for” test for causation is used. Ex: If PG&E had put a sheet underneath the ponds, the injuries to the community would not have happened. Proximate Cause: Plaintiff must establish that the harm suffered by the injured person was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligent actions. Ex: PG&E dumps excess water into ponds which should have sheet underneath so no toxic water gets out * Foreseeability * Unbroken chain from actual cause to injury * Zone of danger 3) Injury: 14 years of hex chrome seeping into dirt over to contaminate water the families of Hinkley drink and use caused significant injuries such as cancers, miscarriages and kidney stones. II.
The state of Confusion enacted a law to control commerce that the federal government had not regulated for some time. However, Confusion’s regulation cannot improperly inconvenience interstate commerce because it would be unconstitutional. Tanya Trucker’s Road to Succeeding Tanya Trucker’s likelihood of prevailing in this case is optimistic. The fact that Confusion is executing an unconstitutional act by initiating a statute to require B-type truck hitches on their roadways gives Trucker a legal advantage to succeed in a civil suit. The State of Confusion would have to generate a constitutionally valid reason for requiring B-type truck hitches not only in their state, but also on all national roadways.
This case is relevant to what I have studied. It gives me a reference of negligence showing how a business needs to protect people from harm from others while they are in the facility. It also shows that a business has a duty to care for how ones wrong doings owes the injured party. Then how the duty of obligation come into effect the pub had an obligations to make sure that harm was prevented if it was to possibly occur to any of their patrons . (Meiners pg.
Those illegally distributing alcohol could not use the legal system to resolve differences, so they had to resort to violence. In turn, forcing the police department to increase forces to enforce the prohibition law, and less for the other crimes . (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol) Prohibition banned only the manufacturing, sale and transport, but not consumption or possession of alcohol, so many people bought liquor before the 18th Amendment was passed. (www.1920-30.com/prohibition/) Criminal organizations mostly profited by the prohibition which in turn promoted other illegal activities.
The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages. Damages were incurred. (Textbook p.150) ANALYSIS The fact remain that there was an accident, an injury occurred from the accident and negligence was evident. Officer Ruthless was negligent but was justified in the decision. He had to uphold the curfew law.
This also refers to the Plain View Doctrine. Since the driver was unconscious and could not give consent to the search, the consent was implied to help assist the driver. With that said the marijuana would be admissible evidence. Officer Smith did everything by the rule book on the night she had a routine traffic stop turn into an accident with the driver unconscious. Officer Smith later found out why the driver fled and did not want to get pulled over in the first place.
It appears as though Ms. Tom is suing Kresge’s, Co. for negligence due to her slip and fall accident that happened in their store. She believes Kresge is liable for her injury because it occurred as a result of a condition created by Kresge’s "mode of operation." Mrs. Tom contends that Kresge’s should be held liable because the condition that she said caused the accident had existed for a length of time that if Kresge had exercised normal use of ordinary care, Kresge’s employees at the store should have known of the condition and taken action to remedy it. The “mode of operation” rule looks to a business’s choice of a particular mode of operation and not the particular events surrounding the plaintiff’s accident. Typically, under the rule, the plaintiff is not required to prove notice if the defendant
In the civilian world it would be tantamount to a state law forbidding store and bar owners to check ID before selling liquor to younger customers. Such a law would force the proprietor of a bar to assume the risk that if an underage customer drives and accidentally kills someone on the way home, the proprietor will be held liable. That risk is reduced by the posting and enforcement of signs stating “We Check ID.” Properly enforced liquor control laws protect the public interest even if some 18-year-olds successfully conceal or lie about their age and some adults do not ask for proof. It would not be accurate to claim, however, that the age of customers is “personal and private,” and state law allows 18-year-olds to drink alcohol as long as they do not say they are underage. This is, however, how the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy worked.
In 2007, I was a passenger in a vehicle that was initially pulled over for speeding. After the officer, noticed an open container (broken seal) of alcohol. Immediately the officer wrote two tickets, one for the driver and one for the passenger, even though the privately owned vehicle didn’t belong to me. I didn’t argue with the officer due to lack of knowledge with that particular law and didn’t want any extra trouble. The officer neglected to write an additional ticket to the driver for speeding.