This is a case concerning negligence. The plaintiff, Mr. Davis’s wife, wishes to bring this case to the court under negligence law because of the death of her husband in a car accident. There are two defendants in this case. The first defendant, GM Holden Ltd, is a car manufacturer. The second defendant, Brown’s employee, is a truck driver.
The negligence is alleged to arise from the fact that there was a defect within the alternator had caused the truck stalled on the freeway. Driving a hatch-back at freeway speed was Mr. Davis, who was unable to see the stalled truck, causing his death.
I. Issue
The issues for determination on liability under negligence law is whether GM and Brown’s employee would be liable for the negligent act or omission to act? In other words, did GM Holden Ltd. and Brown’s employee owe duty of care? If so, was there a breach of duty? If so, what damages should be awarded? Finally, possible defenses available to the defendants will also be considered to prevent the court from ruling in the plaintiff’s favor.
III. Applications
GM
…show more content…
The first defense is based on the principle of vicarious liability. According to Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA44, the truck driver, an employee of Brown, can shift his liability to his employer. The key issue was whether the activities of the employee in committing the tort could be said to be within the scope of his employment. The second defense is based on contributory negligence. This situation is similar to the fact in Joslyn v Berryman [2003] HCA34. The plaintiff’s husband had failed to take proper care for his own safety as he was driving ‘immediately behind the panel van’, therefore, causing his death. In spite of driving at freeway speed, Mr. Davis should have kept a proper following distance behind any vehicle. This argument can be used to reduce the liability of the truck’s driver, thus, reduce the paid amount for
Mr. Limon’s mother retained Plaintiff to pursue a tort claim on behalf of Mr. Limon and her (collectively, the “Clients”) against the allegedly negligent driver. The negligent driver had an automobile liability policy issued through defendant Geico. Plaintiff alleges that its attorney’s fee contract with the Clients granted it a one-third contingency fee in “all monies collected” as a result of the lawsuit against the negligent driver. (Petition, ¶¶ 5.2, 5.3) 4.
McKee was travelling below the posted speed limit, but may have been traveling faster than her wipers could sufficiently clear the water from her windshield. McKee failed to see Pedestrian 1 crossing Fletcher Avenue in enough time to take evasive action. The investigation of this crash has been completed and I request this case be inactivated.
On December 22, 1978, the plaintiff’s, Mark Congini’s parents, son was injured in a car collision while he was driving home intoxicated. Mark Congini was driving home from his employee, Portersville Valve Company, Christmas party where Congini was served alcoholic beverages at the party leading him to the point of intoxication. When he requested for his keys, though the company’s agent who Mark requested the keys from knew he was intoxicated, they were given to him with full knowledge that Mark had the intent to drive home from the party. Congini was eighteen years of age at this time and his injuries consisted of numerous fractures in addition to brain damage leaving him entirely disabled for the remainder of his life. The defendant in this
In the case of Harris v. CSX a railroad worker by the name of Ronald K. Harris filed against his employer, CSX Transportation Inc., under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act and the Locomotive Inspection Act. Mr. Harris suffered from cancer, specifically multiple myeloma, which he believed was caused by his exposure to diesel exhaust fumes in his line of work. Unfortunately, after filing and while the case was pending, Mr. Harris succumbed to his cancer and legal proceedings against CSX Transportation were taken over by Deborah Kay Harris, administratrix of his estate. The amended filing by his estate stated Mr. Harris died of cancer, specifically multiple myeloma, brought on by exposure to diesel exhaust fumes. The circuit court of Marshall
Case Analysis Paper / Discussion MBA 623 Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Shamalbhai Paper # Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 2006) Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim.
His friend pushed a button on the top of the car, which caused the car to descend, during this time Joseph slipped and fell. Joseph was crushed by the car and suffered serious injuries. The facts in this case are unlike ours, the owner of 666 Elm St. was not aware that Richard was in any peril and therefore this exception does apply to
Law Office of Enter name here 126 Legal Way Huntsville, AL 35759 RE: Forrester v. Mercury Parcel Service and Richard Hart Dear Enter Name, We have been retained by Ann Forrester and her husband William to represent them regarding the accident that involved, Richard Hart, a delivery driver and employee of Mercury Parcel Service Inc. Injuries and Property Damage Richard Hart was driving a Mercury Parcel delivery van in the course of his duties when he struck Mrs. Forrester as she crossed the street with this vehicle on the morning of February 26, 2014. As a result, Mrs. Forrester has sustained permanent and severe injuries from the incident. The injuries that she suffers from are fractures to her left leg, pelvis and hip, concussion, torn
The damages caused to Aaron’s new car cannot be excluded as it was not part of his premises [McCutcheon v David MacBrayne (1964)]. The claim for damages caused to his premises has to rely upon whether the clause was being incorporated in a fair and reasonable way (George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds [1983]). The court may consider the bargaining position of both parties. Aaron and EFG were deemed to have equal bargaining power since both of them were in business. However, Aaron may have more bargaining power since he hired the equipment as a consumer, not in the course of business.
In order for job/position of the defendant in relation to plaintiff to be established the defendant must hold a job or position that is in relation to the plaintiff in order for a legal obligation to be established. In this case the defendants Matthew Hartley was operating a motor vehicle in a grossly negligent manner, operating a vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene of a crash and killed the plaintiff, Mollie Mahowald throwing her 20 or 30 feet in the air. Therefore, the defendant does not owe the plaintiff a legal obligations based off the job/position relationship.
Melanio A. Fortin 5856695 Assignment #2 Diane Pardu v. Dual Power Solar Diane Pardu has been an employee for Dual Power Solar for 17 years and is was fired at the age of 49. During the 17 years of employment, Diane possessed an annual wage of $51,000, an additional $10,000 for commissions, and health care benefits. Diane performed very well as an employee for Dual Power Solar, as she is very rarely late for her shifts. Although Diane was late on March 18th, she provided a notice, but displaced dishonesty to her sales manager.
The case arises from an accident which occurred on September 26, 2009 after Timothy Lesko attended a Gun Bash. Michael Trail claimed serious injuries from the accident. Timothy Lesko claimed that he was not the driver and does not know who was driving while the accident occurred. Procedural History
Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.
In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege that mike reacted in a negligent matter in his complaint. As people it is our duty to act reasonably. A reasonable person would not have picked up Julian after witnessing him take a kick to the head. A reasonable person should not move a person who has received a kick to the head.
Introduction Torts are crimes that a party commits wrong to another. The injured party is allowed by law to sue the perpetrator. The injured party will be the plaintiff while the perpetrator will be termed as tortfeasor. There are different kind of Torts, however the Negligence Tort, which is when a party fails to care for the other when they are obligated to by circumstance. The primary aim of this paper is to formulate a case study and discuss the Tort of negligence in the event.
Case Facts In November of 1988, Nicole, a 13-year-old girl consummated a murder-suicide pact with a friend in Maryland. Nicole’s counselor was made aware of her suicidal thoughts and discussed it with her. However, Nicole denied making statements about intending to commit suicide and the counselor failed to notify administration or Nicole’s parents. In March of 1989, the father of the girl and plaintiff in this case, Stephen Eisel, brought negligence charges against the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the Superintendent of Schools of Montgomery, the Sligo Middle School Principal, and Dorothy Jones, the School Counselor.