Fact: In 1998, Brenda Evans (plaintiff appellant) terminated her employment at Eaton Corporation (defendant appellant) and filed for long-term disability benefits. Eaton Corporation, a multinational manufacturing company that funds and oversees long-term disability benefits plans for its employees, terminated Ms. Evans's benefits in 2004 based on controversial issues pertaining to her medical reports. Ms. Evans sued under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to recover her benefits. The medication that Ms. Evans was prescribed improved her rheumatoid arthritis, yet she still complained of sever back pain from a previous car accident. Her doctors confirmed that these medical problems resulted in her being totally disable.
The judge holds an authoritative position hence he or she is responsible for ensuring that the rights of the person being accused are balanced with the interests of the society. The prosecutor on the other hand presents the case against the person being accused. The defense counsel in turn represents the accused person so as to prevent him or her from being arrested or convicted during the court process. Therefore, these law practitioners will be discussed and their roles identified as in the case of Peggy Hettrick. Peggy Hettrick case is a case that revolves around the unsolved murder of Peggy Hettrick in 1987 in Fort Collins.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
She was admitted into the hospital with congestive heart failure and injuries due to her fall in West Virginia. The plantiff filed a suit against Wheeling Gaming saying that they were responsible for damages of $80,000.00 for physical and mental injuries due to neglecting to maintain the walkways for handicap access to the casino. ISSUE: May the court exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant? DECISION: The Court determined that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. The court decided that it was not going to grant the defendants dismissal of the case and they were just going to transfer this action to the Northern District of West Virginia.
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.
Unit 4222-304 Principles for implementing duty of care: 1.1: Explain what it means to have a duty of care in own work role: In the law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed upon an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of “reasonable care” while performing any act. It Is for me to provide high quality care to the best of my ability and if for any reason I am unable to do so, I must discuss with my supervisor why I can’t. 1.2: Explain how duty of care contributes to the safeguarding or protection of individuals: If I have concerns with my client around abuse of some sort, it’s within my duty of care towards my client to report it, this includes bad practice by my colleagues, or abuse by another individual, worker or even their family or friends. If I have any other doubts or concerns I would seek advice and guidance from my supervisor. 2.1: Describe potential conflicts or dilemmas that may arise between the duty of care and an individual’s rights: If a client feels that the support from the service they are getting is not the best for them, it’s in their rights to question it and my duty of care to the client to put forward a solution.
The defense attorney has the role to prove the defendant as being not guilty. The defense attorney role is to protect the defendant’s rights, show that the prosecutor did not provide sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty, show if necessary where evidence provided by the prosecutor did not violate the defendant’s rights, and advocate for his or her clients best interest. The prosecutor and the defense attorney’s ethical obligation differ in many ways. According to Kittmer (1995-2015), the differences of the attorneys’ ethical obligations are as follow: “Client's Welfare * Defense attorneys are ethically bound to their clients. They must defend them to the best of their ability and look out for what is best for them… Prosecuting attorneys' clients are usually the people of a specific city or country.
When questioning the ethical responsibilities of the defense attorney, the biggest question is it ethical for a defense attorney to represent a person believed to be guilty. The best thing will be to understand their responsibilities as a defense attorney. The accused person has the right to be represented in a trail and the defense attorney has a duty to represent the accused, regardless to their belief if the accused is guilty or not guilty. It is the duty of an unbiased jury to wisely decide if the accused of the crime had committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. One once said,” That it was better to have ten criminals escape punishment than to have one innocent person imprisoned.” To achieve this it will be ideal to keep the government honest; doing so without convictions by false statements, planted evidence or lying witnesses.
The report made 58 recommendations for how to bring about a "step change" in protecting children from harm. His first investigation into child protection in this country was prompted by the tragic death of Victoria Climbie. She died in February 2000 of malnutrition and hypothermia, having suffered horrific abuse at the hands of her great-aunt and the aunt's boyfriend. It was Lord Laming's first brush with Haringey Council in north London, which he severely criticised for failing to protect the eight-year-old years before investigating the same council's failure to protect Baby P. Victoria was sent to Europe from the Ivory Coast by her parents in the hope that she would receive a better education. But she was starved, beaten with coat hangers and bicycle chains, bound naked and kept prisoner in a freezing bathroom in a squalid inner-city flat in London.
People deserve a reasonable trial for instances, there are individuals who are accused of crimes he or she have not committed. Whereas, certain people have committed crimes that are found not guilty for the simple fact one has the money to hire a high-class lawyer. The situations concerning these accusations tend to protect others that can afford to be represented financially the ones who cannot manage to pay for high-class lawyers settle for court appointed attorneys. “Although appellate courts rule that improper statements made by prosecutors do not render sentencing proceedings unfair, some judges express concern that the error may not be harmless” (Edwards, 1995). This action should be carefully view by higher authorities in making sure that justice is served correctly and