Law Encyc. Negligence $ 1). The rule of liability for negligence is the same whether the injured person is a child or an adult and a person is not liable unless there is a breach of duty owed to the child. Persons entrusted with children have a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and supervision for the safety of children under their control. A caretaker is not an insurer of the safety of a child has no duty to foresee and guard against every possible hazard (21 Ind.
Unlike under unjust enrichment, however, a plaintiff can recover under quantum meruit even if he confers no benefit on the defendant. See, e.g., Barnes v. Lozoff, 20 Wis.2d 644, 123 N.W.2d 543 (Wis.1963) (allowing recovery for architect who created blueprints that were valueless to the defendant because defendant did not own some of the land at issue in the blueprints). Under quantum meruit, damages are “measured by the reasonable value of the plaintiff's services,” and calculated at “the customary rate of pay for such work in the community at the time the work was performed.” To take advantage of the more liberal recovery rule of quantum meruit, a plaintiff must prove two elements, both relating to the parties' course of conduct. As explained by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, to recover under quantum meruit, the plaintiff must prove that “the defendant requested the [plaintiff's] services” and “the plaintiff expected reasonable compensation” for the
First, she carried the bags of shrimp to the freezer. She wondered who had left the freezer without making sure the door was completely shut. Alyce then loaded a case of sour cream on the dolly and wheeled it over to the reach-in cooler. When she opened the cooler, she noticed that it was tightly packed. However, she was able to squeeze the case into a spot on the top shelf.
CLAHASSEY V. C AMI INC. 2002 Mich. App. LEXIS 1352 September 24, 2002, Decided Law for Recreation & Sports Managers p.297 The Clahassey v. C Ami Inc. case is a case that illustrates the value of a sound risk management plan. The defendant clearly held an event in a hazardous location, did not use enough spotters, and failed to warn others of the risks. This case also illustrates the importance of training personnel who will complete incident reports to include essential information and omit potentially harmful editorial comments. In this negligence action, defendant C Ami Inc (Traffic Jam Lounge) appeals as of right from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff following a jury trial in the amount of $77,950.50 including $59,321.50 in attorney fees that defendant was ordered to pay as case evaluation sanctions.
266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered. Nor do the Court's decisions interpreting the Petition Clause in contexts other than defamation indicate that the right to petition is absolute. The Clause was inspired by the same ideals of liberty and democracy that resulted in the First Amendment freedoms to speak, publish, and assemble, and there is
This part sets forth certain rights and remedies with respect to wrongful discharge. Except as limited in this part, employment having no specified term may be terminated at the will of either the employer or the employee on notice to the other for any reason considered sufficient by the terminating party. Except as provided in 39-2-912, this part provides the exclusive remedy for a wrongful discharge from employment. Definitions § 903. In this part, the following definitions apply: (1) "Constructive discharge" means the voluntary termination
Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury." (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, italics added.) In cases of interference with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion, "the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case, and may recover only the actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of its use." (Zaslow v. Kroenert, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 551, 176 P.2d 1, italics added; accord, Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, 610, 12 Cal.Rptr. 488, 361 P.2d 20.)
Section 1 A. P1-P51 (Prologue, The River, The Fire) B. Summary “I lost an arm on my last trip home. My left arm,” the narrator, Dana, states to open the novel’s prologue. She goes on to explain that she does not understand how her arm was lost, and that neither the doctors nor the police could explain how the injury occurred. Although the police suspected that her husband Kevin, who had brought her to the emergency room, had harmed Dana, they drop any charges against him because they have no proof and Dana insists to them that he is not responsible.
This instance is quietly the same with Marie Rossi’s case, Lt. Kara Hultgreen- the first woman flied F-14 fighter died in October 1994 because of loss of control when she crashed into the sea. In this point, the idea is not strong enough because it is much more about the individual, not collective. In fact, every people are stressed at wars, so the way he gave examples and idea is not convincing for the women
Torts Outline Geistfeld—Spring 2005 1) Intentional Torts a) Battery: i) Elements (1) A acts, (2) Intending to cause (a) Harmful contact with P or (b) Contact with P that is offensive and (dignitary harm—not always recognized) (3) A’s act causes such contact. ii) Difference between battery and negligence—negligence is when the D has wrong the P by failing to take sufficient care to avoid harming her. iii) Intent: will have to rely on circumstantial evidence, since mental states are not observable. (1) First issue is motive, but it generally does not matter, since why you did it is not relevant. We’re thinking about rules that govern interactions—objective rather than subjective standard.