However, it is evidently shown that it is his great great grandfather’s fault for many things that have gone wrong in his life. The narrator states that Stanley’s great great grandfather, Elya Yelnats ‘thought nothing of the curse’. As Elya did not thing much of the curse, he did not carry Madame Zeroni up the hill like she asked and therefore she cursed him and all his descendants. Thus, Elya Yelnats’ reaction to Madame Zeroni’s curse is evidently the reason for his ‘problem’ Elya Yelnats ignored Madame Zeroni’s curse and therefore the curse was cast
The employer’s facility is licensed as residential care facility, which omits it from Nursing Home Care Act. The second law “Residential Care Act” is governing living conditions such as lighting, temperature limits, ventilation, and other physical conditions. The employer argued that this act was not mentioned in district court so it should not apply and also the language was very general and not specific enough to rise to the level of a clear statement of public policy. The third law is “Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substance Act”, which makes stealing a controlled substance a criminal offense, but due to lack of clear and specific argument it was not applicable to discharge case. Broom and Miller’s appeal was not able establish how these laws obligates to their discharge case.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sanctioned Fiedelman for failing to exercise due professional care and for failing to document the changes that his subordinates had made in the 1997 North Face work papers. The SEC’s rationale behind their allegation of Fiedelman’s failure to exercise due professional care is that he was in violation of AU Section 230 and AU Section 150. The SEC explains that, as partner in charge, it was his responsibility to document any changes to the 1997 audit conclusion of North Face (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2003). Once he neglected to record these changes, he dismissed his responsibility of exercising due professional care as partner in charge and was, first, in violation of AU Section 230 (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2003). Second, the SEC explains that this mistreatment also caused Fiedelman to be in violation of AU Section 150; he neglected his responsibility of ensuring that the process for making these changes was carried out in accordance to Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS)
What having a duty of care means for a Care Giving Organisation. Aiii: Trained to their Organisations Standards. Ensuring employee’s understand CQC and the definition Duty of Care. Legally, employers must abide by relevant health and safety and employment law, as well as the common law duty of care. They also have a moral and ethical duty not to cause, or fail to prevent, physical or psychological injury, and must fulfil their responsibilities with regard to personal injury and negligence claims.
Fail was not to exercise any actual control over Sandidge's employees. The engineering contract between Butler and Fail further provided that Fail's obligations "run to and are for the benefit of only" Butler and the REA administrator. The plaintiffs' issues for review relate only to the liability of Butler and Fail. There are three issues presented for review. The first issue is whether there is a scintilla of evidence to support a finding that Sandidge was an agent of Butler, which finding
In order to declare an act of negligence there must first be a finding that a duty was owed and breached, and that the injury could have been avoided if the defendant had been following that duty. The orbit of the danger or risk associated with a danger or risk is that which a reasonable person would foresee. Decision:Reversed – judgment for Long Island Railroad. Reasoning: The reasoning in this case was that Long Island Railroad did not owe a duty of care to Palsgraf insofar as the package was concerned. Cardozo did not reach the issue of “proximate cause” for which the case is often cited.
In this assignment, two different companies Antenna Engineering Inc. and Rigger Inc. are going to be analyzed. The liability of standard of care in terms of assembling the antenna belonged to Riggers Inc. that was supposed to construct the antenna safely. Being negligent, this standard of care was violated by them. It is possible to say that the harm condition was fulfilled, because the accident resulted in deaths of several people. Rigger Inc. tried to take the approval of the design changes; however, they did not.
Blast in Centralia Cassandra Loftin Strayer University Professor Richard Ross PAD 500: Public Administration INTRODUCTION The public safety in modern society is dependent upon the proper functioning of administrative systems, and the mine blast at Centralia No. 5 depicts public administration at its worst. The mine blast in Centralia, otherwise called the “Blast in Centralia No. 5”, is an example of when public administration fails and the disastrous effects it can cause. In this particular case, 111 innocent people lost their lives in 1947 because public officials in public administration did not regard the public safety of those people who depended upon them to enforce regulations set in place to protect them.
The court will not enforce agreements between spouses that involve daily life. Agreements between husband and wife over matters that affect their daily lives are not subject to contractual interpretation, even when consideration is present. Spouses normally intend that the terms of their agreements can be varied as situations develop. The court held that it was presumed that the parties made the agreement as husband and wife and did not intend that it could be sued upon. The court held that as a matter of public policy it could not resolve disputes between spouses.
Vicarious liability can only be imposed if it is proved that the employee was acting “in the course of employment.” This criteria is essential, and requires a clear connection between the employment duties and the employee’s acts complained of. As such, most employer’s will be insured in order to avoid such liability. In addition, in order to establish vicarious liability, it is necessary to show that an employee was employed under a contract of service, or in the case of an independent contractor, a contract for services. English law has also established that an employer can be held vicariously liable for a breach of statutory duty by