Case Study: Laura V. Campers Discount Warehouse

Smith’s actions of being distracted by her son contributed at least 50% to her fall and subsequent injury. The store meets the definition of fault, as stated in section 34-6-2-45. A party may be liable for injuries caused by his/her negligent actions, if said actions were the proximate cause of the injuries. To have proximate cause, the injuries must be a probable consequence of the negligence. Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104, 108 (Ind. 2002).

On 3/21/17 at approximately 10:53 AM (Cam 54) I Ren Oldaker Loss Prevention Manager for Sportsman 's Warehouse was viewing my customer service camera and noticed that Store Manager Amy Slaugh 's husband Curtis Slaugh was buying a gun safe ( SKU 1263137/ 99.00). I also saw Archery lead Mikey Axthelm and Store Manager Amy Slaugh with him at customer service. When they came to customer service Axthelm told the cashier to give Curtis the safe for a discounted price, at this time I did not know what that price was. Curtis then talks to Amy and Axthelm briefly and then leaves.

Coca-Cola Co. v. Koke Co. of America, 254 U.S. 143 (1920) U.S. Sup. Ct. Facts: 1886 marked the invention of a caramel-colored soft drink created by John Pemberton. Coca-Cola got its name after two main ingredients, coca leaves and kola nuts. The Coca-Cola Company is suing Koke Company of America from using the word Koke on their products. They believe Koke Company of America is violating trademark infringement and is unfairly making and selling a beverage for which a trademark Coke has used.

The engine along with Rescue 1,3 where toned out for a vehicle accident around 10:00 with entrapment with fluids down. The engine responded and as they were in route the chief on scene requested an additional engine just in case of a spark would catch the car on fire. As the engine was arriving on scene they were told to assist Rescue 1 with getting a patient out of the one car. The patient was trapped by the dashboard and couldn’t move her legs so the engine and rescue crew popped the door and pushed the dash with the hurst tools. The patient was transported with minor

After the grant of summary judgment in favor of Finlay Fine Jewelry, Mrs. Dietz decided to appeal. The facts occurred after a customer wanted to purchase a diamond ring on sale for $1,439.20 and Mrs. Dietz did not knew how to process the transaction to the customer’s top account. After several failed attempts and because the frustration on both the customer and Mrs. Dietz, she decided to apply an extra 10% discount, without authorization, to the customer. Mrs. Dietz claimed that Mr. Bake, L.S Ayres security manager, took her to an interview room for fifty seven minutes where she was accused not only for the fact the she gave an unauthorized discount to a customer, but also of having a drug and alcohol problem, implying that she had taken missing pieces of jewelry, and of

The aide did her job, addressed a possible issue to her administrator, and followed rules set by that administrator. Herman suffered the most. He was lonely, sad, and felt unsafe. He was a war veteran and an elderly man. Although not positive, he could have had PTSD and depression, which could have been evaluated and assessed if it had been acted upon.

January 3, 2006, while shopping at her local store Ms Nancy Park was alleged to have been shoplifting. Ben Gordon, from the Loss Prevention Department, shouted for Nancy Park to stop then grabbed her by the arm to pull her inside the store. Nancy Park lost her balance and fell onto a store checkout counter. After Ms. Park fell onto the counter, she made numerous complaints about her back injury to Ben, but her complaints were not answered by ben; instead she was made to wait on the store Manager, so a search could be conducted. After she waited and hour to be searched nothing was found in her position to suggest that she was shoplifting.

Luigi Vittatoe Dr. George Ackerman ELA2603 Administrative and Personnel Law December 2, 2015 Week 6 Case Study: R. Williams Construction Co. v. OSHRC 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide? R. Williams Construction Company petitions for review of a final order of the OSHRC for violations of the OSHA Act.

This causes some problems with Lucy’s clients because they will call her supervisor to complain about how they feel that they were left in the dark about her relocating and unimportant. Now after reading Lucy’s story, one can make some critical judgments on what Lucy did wrong in this scenario. The first red flag is when Lucy violated the Code of Ethics Principle I. Principle I rule E states that individuals, “…who hold the Certificate of Clinical Competence may delegate tasks related to the provision of clinical services to aides, assistants, technicians, support personnel, or any other persons only if those persons are adequately prepared and are appropriately supervised. The responsibility for the welfare of those being served remains with the certified individual”.

Chanel then proceeded to sue Dr. Takla, Dr. Mohammad Rahman, the pediatric emergency room attending physician on duty; Darryl Coach; a social worker for Brookdale; and Brookdale. Although Chanel made several claims, the only claims that were actually relevant to her case and situation were as follows: medical malpractice case against Dr. Takla, Dr. Lewis, and Dr. Rahman; violation of New York Public Health Law 2805, which is just stating that a healthcare provider must obtain informed consent before performing a medical procedure, or else they can be held liable; Direct and vicarious hospital negligence; and finally, battery against Dr. Takla and Dr. Lewis. Although the plaintiff’s complaint contained a vicarious liability claim against Brookdale, the Armstrong jury was not charged that it could find the hospital negligent on a vicarious liability theory. The court, instead, told the jury that the plaintiff’s theory of negligence was that the hospital had an absence of proper written policies of procedures, poor training, and lack of experience in the emergency room staff. The plaintiffs also claimed the hospital failed to require its staff to follow well-recognized and established administrative regulations and hospital procedures.

Missed identification of shock symptoms in Ms. Gadner 2. IV infiltration being missed resulting in her not receiving fluid ordered 3. “Scanty documentation” depriving the physician of information on Ms. Gadner’s current condition 4. Administration of valium and morphine, contraindicated in shock, nursing not questioning the order 5. Didn’t communicate need for transfer to Dr. Dick.

If the student nurse decide to go away as Gerald has requested in respect of his autonomy she would have breached the duty of care and this would be considered as negligence. The word negligence is a tort law that regard individuals to exercise reasonable care in order to prevent harm that can be acts or omissions to any person. In order for negligence to have happened four elements must have occurred, these include duty of care that the nurses owes Gerald, breach of duty of care, harm caused by this duty of care and the result of the damage or harm that occurs (Johnstone, 2015). Employers are also accountable for employee actions, which means they are answerable to any actions, omissions and negligence.

In order to protect their “Red Sole Mark”, Louboutin filed an application with the US patent and trademark in March, 2007. An approval of the trademark protection was given to Louboutin in 2008 for “lacquered red sole on footwear” having the color red as the main feature. In 2011, the famous fashion company of YSL decided to release monochromatic footwear using the colors yellow, green, purple and red. This segment included the same color for the whole shoe, including the heel, insole, upper and outsole. It’s worth mentioning that YSL has been designing this type of footwear since 1970’s.

On 01-11-2016 at 1309 hours I was dispatched to 112 South Main Street (Dollar general) in reference to shoplifting. Upon arrival I made contact with Dawn Miller, an employee of Dollar General, who informed me of the following: - The white female (later identified as Sharon Rhamy) in the process of checking out has placed a pair of underwear in her left jacket pocket. Upon Rhamy attempting to exit the building Miller stopped her and asked her about the underwear in her pocket. At this time Rhamy removed the underwear from her left jacket pocket.

The second issue is, where Andy threatens Beth that he would burn each and every copy of her book in the warehouse and no one would see that book again would be dealt with section 2(a) of CDA 1971. As s.2(a) states that a person who threats another, intending that the other would fear it and damages a property belonging to that other or a third party, in my opinion, Andy would be held liable under the specified section because Andy wanted Beth to fear him but instead she laughed which complies with s.2(a) of CRA