Davis vs. Esposito In the case of Davis and Esposito, the alleged negligence would fall under unintentional torts. According to Miller & Jentz (2010), the tort of negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. In an unintentional tort, the tortfeasor neither wishes to bring about the consequences of the act nor believes that they will occur (p. 84). Davis was standing in the doorway and abruptly
Words: 355 - Pages: 2
recover damages without showing that the manufacturer was negligent or otherwise at fault without a contractual relationship. II. Theories of Recovery The primary theories on which a product liability claim can be brought are breach of warranty, negligence, and strict liability. A. Breach of Warranty In a warranty action, the question is whether the quality, characteristics, and safety of the product were consistent with the implied or express representations made by the seller.
Words: 4228 - Pages: 17
Personal Crime Analysis Personal crimes are crimes committed against a person, which affects the victim in a personal way. Personal crimes consist of homicide, assault, battery, mayhem, rape, and statutory rape. This paper will identify, define, and differentiate these types of personal crimes. Homicide “is the killing of one human being by another human being” (Schmalleger & Dolatowski, 2010). There are three different types of homicide, which are justifiable, excusable, and criminal. Common
Words: 665 - Pages: 3
fff1111 – 04 ======== Dec. 8, 2014 Legal Movie Plane Crash The movie flight has shown some legal issues and accusation of a criminal negligence to a pilot after a plane accident that caused six deaths within the plane. The Pilot , Whip Whitaker, who was addicted to alcohol and had some drug abuse, had drank and used cocaine at the night before his morning flight with the flight attendant Trina Marquez who died in the plane crash. Captain Whitaker continued drinking on the flight that he led
Words: 631 - Pages: 3
to explode." Issue: Is the manufacturer liable for the injuries under the inference of negligence? Holding: Yes. Judgment for Plaintiff following the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor Rule of law: Res ipsa loquitur does not apply unless (1) A defendant has had exclusive control of the thing causing the injury (2) The accident is of such a nature that it ordinarily would not occur in the absence of negligence by the defendant. Reasoning: • It doesn't matter that we can't tell precisely whether
Words: 620 - Pages: 3
Betty and Cindy cn sue the hotel from negligence. They will prevail, because the salmonella bacteria do not suppose to go undetected by a responsible chef. Providers and servers are responsible for the quality of the products they use to make their plates. During the court process it is most likely that the judge will order to investigate Mabel’s provider of beef, corn, and potatoes to determinate the proximate cause and determine the comparative negligence. However, both of the patrons are more
Words: 653 - Pages: 3
would have saved him from being bound by the notice had it been part of a contract of carriage between the parties,2 he could find no contract in this case; and instead he concluded that the notice had made the plaintiff volens as to the defendant's negligence, because infancy was no bar to volenti non fit injuria and the plaintiff had here appreciated and accepted the risk.3 Accordingly he found for the defendant. This decision is open to question on a number of grounds: (1) It seems strange that an
Words: 1215 - Pages: 5
Knowledge Check..?? Visit LAW 531 Week 4 Knowledge Check 4. What is true about a negligence lawsuit in the context of unintentional torts? A. The plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care. B. The plaintiff does not need to prove that actual injury occurred. C. The plaintiff should prove that the defendant's negligence caused the injury. D. The plaintiff needs to prove that the negligence occurred in the profession of the defendant. 5. What does proximate cause
Words: 1041 - Pages: 5
Introduction Employers are potentially liable at common (for personal negligence and vicarious liability for employee negligence) and statutory law. At statutory law, the legislative intention must be ascertained and whether this allows a civil course of action for damages. It must be established whether a relationship of employment exists between the claimant and respondent. This can be done by referring to the Employees Compensation Ordinance[1], or by using certain common law tests - put simply:
Words: 2174 - Pages: 9
http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.library.ggu.edu/lnacui2api/delivery/Print... 1 of 1 DOCUMENT MATTCO FORGE, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent; MATEO MINGUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ARTHUR YOUNG & COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants. No. B087488. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE 52 Cal. App. 4th 820; 60 Cal. Rptr. 2d 780; 1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 89; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 948; 97 Daily Journal DAR 1354 February 7, 1997, Decided SUBSEQUENT
Words: 19366 - Pages: 78
