...employer’s handbook. • Coleman, under the guise of a meeting set up with the blessing of Software, Inc., punched John in the eye and caused severe eye damage. The issues of this case are that whether John can sue Coleman and whether Coleman can sue Software Inc. I would like to start by addressing the legal issues that this case faces by starting with the jurisdiction. The law of the jurisdiction one is suing in can have a massive effect on the outcome of a suit, so Coleman and John needs to know the various ways different jurisdictions in which they could sue. I think Jimmy’s mother, John, Jimmy’s bar and the jewelry store would be suing under CO Law. On the other hand, Coleman would be able to sue under Delaware law. John will be suing in tort for battery under the Respondeat Superior doctrine. Jimmy’s bar will be suing in tort for and gross negligence under the Respondeat Superior doctrine. Jimmy’s mother would be able to sue for wrongful death and the jewelry store will be suing in tort under Respondeat Superior doctrine. Coleman would be able to sue for Wrongful Termination. Jimmy’s Bar and Jimmy’s Mom: Both would easily win their suits for whatever their damage-causing claim is. As usual in torts, the question becomes: “Can you successfully sue the deep pocket?” Both need to get over the Respondeat Superior hurdle for the same incident: the fireball....
Words: 672 - Pages: 3
...A legal administrative assistant who works in the area of litigation will be closely involved in preparing court documents. Litigation, the legal process followed when one party sues another party in a court of law, can be either criminal or civil. Criminal cases occur when someone has broken the law, such as committing a robbery or murder. Civil cases occur when someone has been injured or wronged, and the parties cannot agree on a solution to the matter. To sue a party, one must have what is referred to as a cause of action. A cause of action is the wrong or injury. A cause of action might be an injury as a result of a defective lawn mower, an injury in an automobile accident, or an injury from slipping and falling on someone else’s property. We will examine a civil case where William F. Oldham is suing James A. Pizzini and Express Delivery Services, Inc. William was injured when his automobile was struck by a truck owned by Express Delivery Services, Inc., and driven by James A. Pizzini. Each litigation case will have at least one plaintiff and at least one defendant. The plaintiff is the party who is suing, and the defendant is the party who is being sued. In our case, William F. Oldham is the plaintiff because he is the person who was injured and who is suing. James A. Pizzini and Express Delivery Services, Inc., are the defendants. They are being sued, one as the driver and one as the owner of the truck, and may both be liable for the losses caused by the injury. The...
Words: 308 - Pages: 2
...Judge Oliver Diaz was a name brought for the reason that The U.S Chamber of Commerce funded negative campaigns against him. Oliver Diaz estimated that $1,000,000 was spent in negative campaign adds as well as Keith Sarrett’s behalf of the judicial election. This documentary talks about frivolous lawsuits and how many of them have impacted the stance on tort reform. The film had a very negative outlook on tort reform as well as supporters of tort reform. The documentary mainly talked about the suing of big companies, these companies are often difficult to sue because of contracts, and the fact that they have a lot of money that can be used to win a lawsuit. Contracts that are required to be signed often say that the employee cannot sue the company that they work for. This is exactly what was discussed in Jones v. Halliburton Co., 625 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D. Tex....
Words: 410 - Pages: 2
... Being the judge in these cases, I think Kenny’s mother, Kyle, and Kenny’s Poor-Man’s Bar can sue Authorit-I for the damage caused by Cartman. They will prevail because this would be considered as a case of negligence which by law, principals which is Authorit-I would be liable for negligent conduct of agents (Cartman) acting within the scope of their employment. Also when running a motivation test, I think that Authorit-I would also be liable if Cartman’s motivation in committing intentional tort was to promote Authorit-I business, Authorit-I is liable for injuries caused by the tort. If Cartman motivation was personal, Authorit-I would not be liable, even if tort occurs during business hours or on premises. Running a work related test, which is only applied in some jurisdictions. Authorit-I would be liable if Cartman commits intentional tort within a work-related time or space, which it was in this case. As far as Cartman suing his employer for wrongful termination, he will definitely not prevail because after hurting couple people there is no need to interview him even if the employee’s handbook said so. I am sure the State police will before anyone else does. In the case of the Jewelry Store suing Authorit-I I believe it would hard to decide who will win this case. I could said that the Jewelry Store might not win the case by suing Authority-I but they might if they decide to sue Cartman because even though Cartman was an agent for Authorit-I by law I would say, Authorit-I...
Words: 440 - Pages: 2
...is where the entitlement accrues from the provisions of the law. FIGURING OUT WHO CAN SUE First, you need to figure out whether you have the right to file a lawsuit against the person or business you have a dispute with. To file a lawsuit in court, you have to be someone directly affected...
Words: 908 - Pages: 4
...FACTS Interspousal immunity is a common law doctrine which prohibits spouses from suing each other. The married couple shares the same identity in law, specifically under the husband name. In Callow v. Thomas, the wife tried to file suit against husband but could not due to the relationship of the parties. Her husband was negligent while driving which caused an accident in which she was injured .The marriage was annulled because she tried to file her claim. Once marriage was annulled she was able to get money from the accident. Interspousal immunity doctrine was modified by The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the case, Lewis v. Lewis, decided in 1978. The wife sued the husband for her injuries caused by negligent driving. Under M.G.L.A. c. 209 § 6, “a married woman may sue and be sued in the same manner as if she were sole; but this section shall not authorize suits between husband and wife except in connection with contracts entered into pursuant to the authority contained in section two.” In Brown v. Brown, the wife filed suit against her husband. He was in “control of the premises and responsible for sanding, salting or shoveling after a snowstorm, that his failure to do so caused the wife to fall, and that she suffered fractures and incurred medical expenses in excess of $2,500.” The facts of the case based on the cases prior cases before did “not trench remotely upon privileged or consensual aspects of married life.” The couple in this case had an agreement...
Words: 771 - Pages: 4
...being infringed on. This policy allows for producers to continue getting their full payout without the risk of someone trying to wrongfully depend on them for money. The behavior of these consumers has a similar effect to government programs, where we see a diminishing of returns as individuals are becoming reliant on the work and success of other and refuse to work themselves. These people are not contributing to society and are instead hindering others from maximizing their utilities. The Act identifies in more specific detail the ways in which a “product seller” is liable for damages and removes the possibility of suing for “mental distress, loss of consortium, or pain and suffering.” It is stated that a defendant “shall be liable only for the mount of noneconomic damages” in punitive damage cases. These stricter guidelines limit the ability for an individual to sue a producer wrongfully, and requires the damages they are seeking to...
Words: 1631 - Pages: 7
... * Adequacy: the lead plaintiffs should defend… * Superiority of the CA process * Separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent decisions * The class action procedure is superior to all other methods in order to resolve the issue in a fair and efficient manner Why not in France? Opt in system: you are not automatically in the class, you have to opt in A very controversial issue: * Some argue it could be favorable to defend the interest of citizens / consumers * Others worry about is impact on economic activities US Opt out mechanism: an issu within the French procedural tradition “nul ne plaide par procureur” 2) Briefly summarize the Vivendi case: who are being sued? On which grounds? Who are suing? Grounds: false financial information leading to a significant decreasre in the vicendi’s stock value price Plaintiffs: shareholders * Between 30/10/2000 and 14/08/2002 * American, british, dutch, French… Defendents * Vivendi SA *...
Words: 612 - Pages: 3
...set, to secure the public from the violations of their rights from the government. The federal tort claim act established within 1946 enacted, to make sure the public of the U.S. will obtain the proper reimbursement or if the society wants to sue the government within the matter. The 1946 federal tort claim act will offer the public of the U.S. adequate soften the spread around the immunity for the federal personnel. Following the 1946 federal tort law, the public would obtain no likely way of suing the unlawful government activity. It will let the staff of the federal government; have immunity from lawsuits despite the harm the personnel made the victim go through in the situation. In this paper it will discuss the Federal Tort claim act, it applies to local justice and security agencies, the issues of risk identified with civil obligation as it applies to criminal activity, justice, and security associations, and the conclusion. It will give a full insight of the state and federal tort claim act. Government Tort Claims Act The 1946 government tort claim act it will give the public of the U.S. another method around to avoid immunity from them to sue the government although it could obtain the power, to control a lawsuit that is federal claim also the courts to listen to this case as such. Despite the first amendment granting a person the right for their complaints, to addressed, with the government...
Words: 1884 - Pages: 8
...This is the best way to protect Creative’s business and innovations as they would be able to avoid an endless and costly legal battle with Apple and leverage the Zen patent effectively. There are several potential tactical options that Creative has toward the patent infringement issue against Apple. To begin with, an option would be to give up their patent and try to compete with Apple. Considering the growth that Apple has and their leading market position, this is probably the worst option for Creative. Plus, the superior user experience that the Zen patent brings in this fast growing MP3 market will undoubtedly drive spectacular revenue for Creative and thus there is no reason for Creative to give up the patent. Secondly Creative could sue to seek an injunction from allowing Apple to make their product. It is a really good option when people want to get rid of a potential competitor for a long time. In this case, Apple would not be able to manufacture its iPod when Creative litigate their claims. But would Apple give up on this attractive MP3 market just because of this? The answer is no without doubt. What they would do is to redesign their software, improve their iTunes whatever they need to better fit with their customers. They already knew the technology and Microsoft has a similar but fundamentally different patent. It is not hard to imagine that Apple would be able to create their own patent. In other words, it is just impossible for Creative to get rid of...
Words: 720 - Pages: 3
...The Suing of Tobacco Companies Try to imagine six million people. Six million people are equivalent to the number of Jewish people who died in the holocaust. Six million people are equivalent to five times the number of Americans who have died in all the wars combined. As a society this number is viewed as outrageous and unacceptable, yet every single year six million people die from tobacco related illnesses and for some reason this number is not seen as ridiculous when these deaths are attributed to tobacco related illnesses as when they are due to war and genocide. How can any substance that produces such mass death ever be distributed and produced legally? Well, many have begun to think the same way and have embarked on the long and arduous journey to attempt to sue tobacco distributers. But these large companies have fought back with a vengeance, and so the debate has arisen whether or not people should be able to sue big tobacco companies. People not only have the right to sue, but should sue tobacco companies for a multitude of lawless acts, for pain and suffrage, and as well as for the economic losses many have suffered. The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of big tobacco companies is my beloved uncle. He tragically passed away three years ago from gun disease. My uncle Anthony had been an avid chewer since he was 16 years old. At a very early age he had become a slave to his addiction to chewing tobacco, this addiction ended his life. With the passing...
Words: 3785 - Pages: 16
...I. Introduction Mr Joseph Muniyandy wishes to sue a casino operator in Singapore claiming its staff wrongly detained him and caused him injury. He also wishes to sue the Police for failing to take action in making arrests and for refusing to assist in making a magistrate’s complaint for the wrongs he claims to have suffered. II. Legal Issues Mr Muniyandy can sue the casino under (i) false imprisonment; (ii) battery and (iii) assault. He can also sue the Police under (iv) breach of duty and (v) negligence. III. Brief Answer Mr Muniyandy is likely to succeed under the tort of false imprisonment and battery. In the event that the identity of the staff that looked like ‘a hulk’ can be established, the grounds of assault can succeed too. However, he is unlikely to succeed in suing the Police for breach of statutory duty and negligence. IV. Causes of Action For issues (i) to (iii), Mr Muniyandy would have to sue the casino under vicarious liability. The casino is vicariously liable for the torts committed by its staff as (a) there is an employer-employee relationship; (b) the employee committed the tort and (c) the tort is committed in the course of employment. (i) False Imprisonment False imprisonment requires the act of the defendant to be direct , intentional and must totally restraint the plaintiff. To compel a person to remain in a given place is an imprisonment . In Williams v Jones , there was imprisonment if a person, with the intention of detaining another...
Words: 1909 - Pages: 8
...Employment Law by Liberal Arts and Sciencs Professor Nicholas Alimaras BSBA DeVry University 11/27/2011 1. In late July 1990, Wilson, a Roman Catholic, made a religious vow that she would wear an antiabortion button “until there was an end to abortion or until she could no longer fight the fight.” The button was two inches in diameter and showed a color photograph of an 18- to 20-week-old fetus. The button also contained the phrases “Stop Abortion” and “They’re Forgetting Someone.” Wilson began wearing the button to work in August 1990. Another information specialist asked Wilson not to wear the button to a class she was teaching. Wilson explained her religious vow and refused to stop wearing the button. The button caused disruptions at work. Employees gathered to talk about the button. U.S. West identified Wilson’s wearing of the button as a “time robbing” problem. She cited religious discrimination, claiming that she was not reasonably accommodated. What result? Wilson v. U.S. West Communications, 58 F.3d 1337 (8th Cir. 1995). I think she had all right to wear the button but when it actually comes to her trying to force her beliefs on someone else, that’s where it begins to be not okay. This actually reminds me of the English only policy, it’s not against the law to put a stop to different language speaking unless in makes the other employees uncomfortable in legitimate ways. I think the same would apply here, she was making other employees uncomfortable...
Words: 778 - Pages: 4
...though she knew it wasn’t sturdy. She will not be able to recover. 4. Does Jamil recover from the suing of Jose for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress due to Jose slamming into Jamil’s car? Answer: No, because battery is defined as the intentional, unpermitted, or offensive touching of the body- there must be contact with the person’s body, not the victim’s property. There was no intentional infliction of emotional distress. 6. What will likely happen if Celia sues for false imprisonment? Answer: She will more than likely win due to the fact that the employees grabbed her and dragged her along with yelling at her accusing her of stealing a basketball resulting in assault and battery. They confined her in a small space for an extended amount of time. The treatment of Celia was unreasonable and she can sue for false imprisonment. 8. Does Cory have a good defense that he was not involved in the fight between Ruby and Robert when Robert tries to sue Cory? Answer: No, he is the owner of the company and is under vicarious liability, which means he is liable for the tort his employee (Rudy) did. Cory has the deeper pockets allowing for Robert to sue and recover more money for his injuries. 10. Is there anything that Manuel can do since Deborah stole his donut recipe and opened her own donut shop down the street and is using Manuel’s recipe? Answer: YES! He can sue the ever living daylights out of her under theft of trade secrets, as long as he can prove that...
Words: 338 - Pages: 2
...small claims court. The best way to understand this program is to read this guide from beginning to end. Obligatory Disclaimer: This document was prepared by UCAN's staff and interns and was not written or edited by an attorney. This document does not constitute legal advice. It is simply a guide designed to advise you of your rights under the 1992 TCPA, which gives ordinary people the ability to take legal action in Small Claims Court against companies that violate the law. If you need legal advice, please consult an attorney. Table of Contents Letter from UCAN Executive Director Michael Shames / Introduction……………………….2 Violations for which telemarketers can be sued………………………………………………....3 What to do when you are solicited / Who can you sue?…………………………………………4 “Strike Back” Anti-Telemarketing Script………………………………………………………..5 Controlling the call: a sample conversation……………………………………………………...6 Using “rejection psychology” to your advantage………………………………………………..7 Sample letter to a telemarketer suspected of breaking the law…………………………………8 F.I.S.T. Anti-Telemarketing Program……………………………………………………………9 “Hired Gun” Sample Letter……………………………………………………………………...12 Arkow v. Bank of America……………………………………………………………………….13 UCAN’s Fraud Squad…………………………………………………………………………….15 http://www.ucan.org From The Desk of Michael Shames Dear Fellow Telemarketing Victim: You are awakened by a ringing phone, but when you answer, nobody is on the line. Then, just as you drift off to sleep, you get another call...
Words: 6041 - Pages: 25