H. B. Fuller is morally responsible for the addiction of the street children to the Resistol Product because according to the rights theory it suggests that the consumers and society have a right to a safe product so then H. B. Fuller had a duty and a right to provide a safe product. The product when used correctly was "safe" however the firm failed to effectively educate persons the proper use of the product. The firm based on reason not to exit the market which applies to the Utilitarian Theory. Fuller has no control over how its products are used. If however Fuller is aware that its products are addictive to street children, it could as a morally conscientious company attempt to better educate regarding harmful effects of misuse of products and especially to the countries that are in high rate in poverty.
Or did you just hope for the best and continue on your way? If you one of many people who had a conceal carry license you would most likely just go right it without any worries. But what happens if that store didn’t allow weapons? Criminals don’t care about that no weapon sign, nor do they care about no gun zones. The reason they are called criminals, is because they break the laws governments have enacted to keep its citizens safe.
Since Smith’s use was ordinary, meaning that he was using the vehicle for normal everyday use under ordinary conditions, the dealer’s personal injury disclaimer cannot be enforced against him. The sales contract drawn up by the dealership is not reasonable as it favors them. It allows them to circumvent any effort to make sure the vehicle is working in a safe manner prior to the sale. In conclusion, I believe Mr. Smith will prevail against the seller for breach of warranty. The steering mechanism defect of the vehicle made it unfit for ordinary use ultimately causing the injuries.
Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim fail? The disparate impact claim failed because Dunlap failed to prove TVA’s hiring practices affected one group more severely than another. In this situation discriminatory proof is not required. The District Court’s findings proved that TVA’s interview procedures were discriminatory as they excluded African American applicants in general; however, the U.S. Appeals Court disagreed. The Courts believed that Dunlap lacked statistical proof validating a protected group was negatively impacted establishing a “Pima Facie” case.
Why and or Why not? Yes, it would warrant the judge being disciplined do to the fact that these unethical, illegal, and violated rights of others within his court and judicial office say that the judge is incompetent to fulfill his duties and obligations of his position within the judicial system all together. He does not respect himself, his position, the laws and others and he further gives indications to the fact that he doesn’t have any “Morals” what so ever here. In addition to my previous answer: Yes, the judge should be moved from office as well as being arrested for the violations he committed here. Moreover, I have read and heard in the news as well as the internet reports that is “Extremely Difficult to Remove a Judge from Office,” primarily because they all cover for each
Gun control has two sole purposes, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to help save lives. Guns and crimes do not need to go hand in hand. Having a gun does not necessarily lead to a crime. Any person or group who is for gun control admits that although guns are dangerous, if restrictions are placed on getting a gun, guns do not need to lead to a crime. Having a mandatory waiting period to buy a gun is a perfect example.
It would make sense to do the same for public assistance. Failed drug test….no benefits. There is even mandatory drug testing in sports teams, and even in educational programs. It is not just even one simple drug test; it is continuous so it is made sure that people are following the rules. There should be no problem proving that families are legitimately in need of assistance.
Dollree and her attorney said that based on founded laws, the police had no right to come in to Dollree Mapp’s residence without proper warrants to search. The police only showed a piece of paper, not close up, and couldn’t provide a copy of the warrant at the time of her sentencing. The pornographic materials thus obtained, were illegally obtained and should not have been held as evidence in the case. Dollree had first appealed to the Ohio State Court, but to no avail. She then appealed to the US Supreme Court, who decided that what the police had done was unconstitutionally wrong.
(CDC MMWR) It is clear that helmet laws save lives. Then why do states have limited or no helmet laws at all? The motorcycle industry lobby is a very powerful organization. They often make a very strong case against the use of helmets in states. They claim, that the states are getting in the way of personal liberties of the riders and therefore should just stay out of the decision to wear a helmet.
The defendants’ attorney withdrew from the case, and the judge appointed members of the local bar, many of which withdrew from the case as well. Two attorneys represented the accused, but lacked the time to investigate the case, and the defendants were convicted. b. Issue: Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? c. Decision & Reasoning: The Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional.