In addition the Plaintiff never mentioned her occupation, her salary or how she suffered loss wages. Plaintiff also failed to explain how Hipster Airlines breached its duty. Given that the facts were so minimal and the elements for negligence lacked important substance to support the allegations it is likely that the court may dismiss the action for negligence given that the plaintiff failed to state a proper claim upon which relief may be granted. Vicarious Liability Under the second cause of action vicarious liability, Plaintiff stated that the flight attendant breached the duty of care by “ failing to provide proper and effective instruction to passengers when exiting the aircraft and going down an emergency slide.”
This is important as he completely opposed the justification of military necessity by the government and military using concrete evidence of the government itself attempted to destroy files rather than merely evaluating specific cases which could not give a whole picture of the whole problem as it could be argued as outliers；which makes it irrefutable as it is undeniable that the government had misconducted , giving value to the argument that the degree posed by Japanese-American was not equivalent as there are no concrete evidence of Japanese-Americans being disloyal. However the purpose and content of the source is limited for historian studying the Japanese Internment Camps as it mostly circulates around the justification of Military Necessity; thus had mainly used evidence of false accusation of Japanese-Americans being disloyal and how government files had
This means that the evidence was not reviewed enough to justify internment camps. This also means that the United States accidently or purposefully excluded information so they did not have to provide an explanation for why they did it. It also means that because the government did not release the documents that were detained individual people could not review it and say it was unjustified. ” An extensive effort was made to locate and review records of government action and to analyze other sources of information” (Personal Justice Denied...5). If the government did not make an extensive effort to search for evidence to justify internment camps, then why did they build them?
Secondary rules tell us how to revise the rules. The Constitution is in charge being we as people act as it is. Thus, regarding the Fugitive Slave Law, the jurors did the wrong action seeing they did not uphold their legal obligation to enforce the law. The law decreed no one may aid in helping free a slave; hence, people cannot question Congress should not be because the law states no one may assist in helping a slave to escape to freedom.
Disputes arose between the parties regarding defects and incomplete work. The dispute came to a head when Cordon required Lesdor to sign the strata plan in order for it to start selling units and realising its return. Lesdor refused to sign the strata plan, arguing that it did not have to do so until Cordon had fully completed construction according to the plans and specifications. There was no definition of “Completion” in the contract. Lesdor terminated the joint venture agreement with Cordon on the basis of Cordon’s unwillingness to properly complete the work and claimed damages for defective work.
Reasons Valerie does not fit the dynamic approach consist of, strict value of maintaining control, order, and respect (History of Management Thought, n.d., pp. 7,8). Not that these values represent negative ideals, just the discourteous approach to not allow employees to learn and possibly make mistakes by applying inventiveness within their team. Also, the dynamic approach encourages fresh thinking to beat out competitors and remain successful in business not just in management (History of Management Thought, n.d., p. 19 pg 1). Meanwhile, Valerie does not provide any innovative ideas that are original and unfortunately, do not allow her team to branch out and create their
Thus, uncertainty integrates the accident probabilities (Teitelbaum (2007)), but also the agents’ beliefs about the scale of damage. Indeed, a harm extent is generally unknown. Then this one is included in an interval and agents form beliefs about it and ambiguity about the issue (the scope of an accident is fundamental). Furthermore, ambiguous feelings concern both the polluters (as in Teitelbaum (2007), Langlais (2012), Franzoni (2012)), and the victims.
The case involving Tiger Woods and the Christensen shipyard company on the use of tiger woods name and photographs is a tort of invasion of privacy and a violation of his right of publicity. This right protects an individual to be free appropriation of ones persona. Therefore the defendants using Tiger Woods name and photographs in their ships can be asserted as a breach of right and an intrusion on his publicity for business gain. For instance the ship yard did not have First Amendment rights to present truthful facts regarding the use of Tiger’s name and photographs for that promotion, they did it without his consent. Besides, having the ship written privacy does not have any impact on the case.
Another unethical practice was the breach of a contract signed between the participants and the researchers. It was unethical because the participants were taken their rights to object from the harassment of the guards. Zimbardo acted as a prison warden instead of reminding the guards that they should not abuse the
In fact, nonemployee organizational trespassing had normally been banned with the exception of where "unique obstacles" disallowed nontrespassory process of contact with the employees. The approachability exception is a thin one. It does not pertain where nontrespassory contact to employees could be burdensome or not preferably useful, but merely where the place of a plant and the existing lodgings of the employees place the employees past the reach of sensible union efforts to converse with them. Based on a misunderstanding of inadequate scope of exception of the organizational efforts the National Labor Relation Board (NLRB) concluded that the union did not have practical means to trespass in order to alert the employees of Lechmere. The assumption is that seeing as the employees do not live on the side of Lechmere 's territory they are not past the contact of the unions announcement.
The act established that companies could not use treasury money to support or dissent someone’s political campaign, and the case decided whether are not this law was against the first and fourteenth amendment . The outcome of the case decided that this law was in fact not against the first or fourteenth amendment because companies could not be regarding as people and therefore did not reserve the same kinds of rights and liberties, such as freedom of speech or equal protection under the law . In the case of McConnell v. Federal Election Committee, the BCRA of 2002 was brought into question and whether or not Congress had the right to limit companies spending of money towards political campaigns, even if it was considered to be soft money and
There had been some efforts to hide facts of Watergate tapping: documents were destroyed, staffs were under pressure to stay away from press, staffs were persuaded to give certain answers to FBI, and staffs possessed critical information were promoted after Watergate. President Richard Nixon assured the public that the White House had no involvement with this particular incident. His use of the words “particular incident” led the reporters to look further into their investigation. Woodward and Bernstein uncovered indecent campaign strategies to undercut the Democratic Party by using unlawful methods such as threats, phone tapping and spying. Woodward and Bernstein, however, could not prove it because their sources refused to speak
The state also argued that the protected interests were not created by the U.S constitution but by its institutions. They also explained that suspending the students would hurt their reputations and make it hard for the students to find employment. The court argued that the state had no authority of suspending the students because it deprived each of them of educational
These actions did not go by what was established by an earlier, similar case, and by performing the scan with no warrant, the government did not allow DLK to conduct private activities in his own home. Although some argue that the government’s actions were acceptable because they only scanned what was visible to the public, they still used a device not readily available to the public to see inside DLK’s home. The government’s actions were unacceptable, and a warrant should have been obtained prior to performing the search in order to make it