Attractive Negligence Case Digest

In this case, Ray Knight’s parents (plaintiffs) are seeking liability compensation against the School District (defendants) for the alleged negligence of their son’s middle school. School officials gave Ray Knight a three day suspension for unexcused absences. Although, the School District’s policy is to give parents phone notification and written notification through the mail for student suspension, Knight’s middle school officials sent the written notice home with Knight. In an attempt to hide the information from his parents, Knight crumpled the notification and disposed of it away. On the first day of his suspension, Ray Knight was killed while visiting a friends home. His mother and father were both unaware that Knight was serving

Using the doctrine of attractive nuisance the Ohio Duty of Care Owed to Trespasser Statute establishes the liability of real property owners for injuries sustained by minor trespassers. Mayle v. McDonald Steel Corp., No. 2010-T-0090, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 4319, at *18 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2011). The purpose of the statute is to balance the property owner’s rights to enjoy his or her property and society’s interest in protecting children from harm by an attractive nuisance. Bennett

Julian wants to sue David, the other player. 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 Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball. Contact with a goaltender while he is in possession of the ball is a violation of FIFA. David was know for being a very rough player, who leaded the team in penalties. When a player plays rough they usually intend to do some type

Radiologists recently have been advanced because of radiology expanding practices in many sensitive medical cases. Recent charges against radiologists have brought new obligations and liabilities, making them vulnerable to higher degrees of legal cases against them. Negligence legal proceedings in radiology naturally appear as a result of failure to diagnosis or poor consultation and thus failure to react medically in a timely manner. A great percentage of radiologists are liable to face a claim every five years. Radiologists confront not high risks of malpractice suits if compare with other specialists. The most common medical lawsuits against radiologists are misdiagnosis of breast cancer on mammography and lung cancer.

The case that I have found to write about is the case of Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins and the New York Police Department in New York City which happened in September of 2013. This case was originally tried in the state of New York court in New York City. It was based on the fact that a NYPD cop didn’t properly fill out a search-warrant application that turned up a weapon as well as a handgun and a cocaine cache. Unfortunately, Mr. Wiggins is an accused drug dealer with a prior record and he may likely walk due to “a technicality.” Therefore, the New York City Police Department as well as the New York City police union were very upset because a dangerous person may be back on the streets due to a supple mistake.

The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children.

Mrs. Mabee ordered two-one gallon glass jugs of sulphuric acid, which were delivered to her front door. While Mrs. Mabee carried the jugs from the front door toward the back of the house, one of the jugs shattered and spilled on her body and on the dining room floor and furniture, causing severe damage.

The claimant is a resident of the State of Florida and all services were given to her by the Defendant in the State of Florida.

Mr. Packard and his wife bought a house in 2009 and applied for a $6,500 tax credit. Mr. Packard did not own a principal residence before, and Mrs. Packard owned and lived a principal residence in the past five year. Two policies can apply for the individual $6,500 tax credit: “first time buyer (§ 36(c)(1))” and “long-term resident exception (§ 36(c)(6))”. In other words, it means a person either first time purchased a principal residence, or owned and used the same residence as such individual’s principal residence for any 5-consecutive-year period during the 8-year period.

In a decision made by the United States Supreme court, it was decided “that motor vehicles deserve a reduced expectation of privacy (Atkinson, 2011). This decision is in response to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The case of Elliot Watson delves into why no warrant was needed to search the trunk of his car.

In the article “Actress from law firm ad files $1 million for breach of contract lawsuit," the author, Barbara Ross, Ginger Adams Otis, explains why actress Elena Aroaz. Believed that her contract which was for her to appear in a 30 second commercial only in local areas for a period of 1 year. Aroaz filed the breach of contract lawsuit saying “After the spoof ad became a sensation — even getting a mention in the New York Times — the producer licensed it and the rights to Aroaz’s image to several other law firms around the country without her knowledge, she says in court papers.” According to this article it seems that her claim would fall into a breach of contract. The Levinson Trachtenberg Group is a law firm which hired this actress,

In the court case, they stated, “the Court nonetheless felt “that in time of war residents having ethnic affiliation with an invading enemy may be greater source of danger than those of a different ancestor.”’ (Rothenberg & Mayhew, 2014, pg. 551). They used the concept of “one bad apple spoils the whole bunch” to deal with the issues that were going on at the time. They disregard any personalities and qualities of every Japanese American. They removed the American and used only the Japanese of the term to “protection against espionage and against sabotage.” They say they are a “danger” because of what their “ancestors did. The families of those whole actually were a threat to Americans may not have been even related except that they were both

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower courts approval of the drug checkpoint saying, “the checkpoint contravened the Fourth Amendment” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000). The United States Supreme Court affirmed that decision stating that the, “checkpoint program was indistinguishable from a general interest crime control” (Cornell University Law School LII, 2000) that violated the Fourth Amendment.

A proposed class action against Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. has been filed in California federal court. Accusations that the sporting goods retailer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) allege that the company sent text messages to consumers after they had opted out of the subscription based alert advertising program. Plaintiff, Phillip Ngiehm, states that he originally agreed to participate in the marketing program, but that he opted out in December 2015 by texting the word “stop” as instructed. According to the terms of the program, this would result in a halt of messages from the program to the subscriber – effectively removing him from the subscriber list.

Per the summons and complaint, plaintiff alleges two incidents of false arrest. First incident (TPO January 17, 2014 at 1740 hours, 1839 Lexington Avenue, Manhattan), plaintiff claims he was visiting his friend in apartment 9F at the building. Plaintiff states that he was in the lobby when MOS, including defendant PO Ortega, stopped, questioned, searched, and arrested him. Plaintiff alleges that MOS struck him in the back, face, head, and neck. Plaintiff states that he suffered a seizure at the 23rd precinct lobby causing him to go into a coma for approximately six days. Criminal charges were, later, dismissed against plaintiff. Second incident (TPO February 14, 2014 at 1855 hours, 1829 Lexington Avenue, Manhattan), plaintiff alleges that