Cause Of Action: Kingston High School (KHS)

The plaintiff, Demar, is disable and attended a baseball game at the defendant’s stadium 9CWS). At the conclusion of the game Demar remained seated in order to wait for the long lines at the restroom and elevators to subside .CWS policy is for all attendees to leave the stadium immediately upon ending of the game plaintiff was informed by security personnel to leave. Plaintiff refused to move therefore security allegedly took possession of his cane and forcibly brought Demar to the stadium ambulance. Plaintiff was taken to the hospital where he refused to be examined or treated. Demar was then left to find his own way back to his vehicle at the stadium.

In order to determine liability, the courts needed to decide if the events that unfolded in this case could be attributed to negligence on the part of the

The Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP) is New Jersey’s child protection and welfare agency and has the obligation to provide services for every child and family suffering from abuse and neglect. The Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) supports the transition of adolescents into adulthood and is obligated to develop a robust service system that seeks to provide services and supports youth. Both DCPP and OAS fall within the State of New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families (DCF). The Division of Child Protection and Permanency defines the aging out population as the age of majority, which New Jersey law has defined as the age (18) at which a child becomes an adult. This stage is known as adolescence. DCF policy defines

In 1976, Howard Bettel and some friends entered Ki Yim’s store. After the boys began acting outrageously, an employee asked them to leave. Instead of immediately leaving the property, the boys went to the front of the store and began throwing wooden matches on the sidewalk. One of the matches ignited and caused a small fire inside the store. The employee and the owner of the store put out the fire and Yim grabbed Bettel with both hands to restrain him. While grabbing Bettel, Yim’s forehead hit him in the face causing severe injuries to his nose.

Tort of negligence is the failure to act as a reasonable person to exercise the standard of care required by the law and resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. To prove negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant causing the damage was not only the actual cause of damage. He also show that the proximate cause of the damage. Proximity is the legal relationship between the parties from which the law will attribute a duty of care. And to prove negligence the type of the damage that occurred must have been foreseeable. Foreseeability means whether a ‘reasonable person’ would have foreseen the damage in the situations. It is the leading test which is used to determine proximate cause. The important point is a duty of care may not be owed to a particular claimant, if a claimant was unforeseeable. Foreseeability and proximate cause will be discussed

The judge ruled that the University of Notre Dame did in fact owe Letitia Hayden a duty to take necessary precautions to protect her from injury, caused by the actions of other fans in the area that were trying to get ahold of the ball in the same seating area. It was also found that the trial court was in fact incorrect in originally entering summary judgment and finding that no duty existed in favor of the University of Notre

At the annual retreat for the Major League for the Major League Baseball umpires, a Wilson representative gave the plaintiff an umpire’s mask with what he claimed that the mask was a new, safer design.

In R v Flynn 1867 the incident was for manslaughter and the prisoner was charged with having killed John Tracey . From the evidence shown , a fight took place between a prisoner and his friends on one side and the deceased and his friends on the other . Both were throwing stones and sticks at each other .After the fight the prisoner threw a stone at the deceased which struck him on the forehead over the right eye and knocked him down . The deceased then got up and went into the public house . He went to bed and the next day was feeling a bit weak and tired.Two days following this he past away. There was insufficient evidence for the jury to establish the death of the deceased was caused by the throwing of the stone.The doctor says in terms that the blow was the cause of death Except there was nothing in the evidence to cause injury except the blow . The doctor says the injury could have been caused by a fall but there was no evidence of a fall except what was caused by the blow The doctor says that by a short chain of causation , the blow caused the fracture and the fracture caused the death. It can be argued that there was a chain of causation in Murt and Bernies situation.Bernie colliding with Murt caused the pain in Murt's tooth which lead to it having to be removed

This civil action was heard by Justice Diane M. Lahaie of the Ontario Court of Justice. The appellant Mr. Maclsaac is appealing his conviction of one count of aggravated assault on the basis that he did not receive a fair trial due to the trials judge speculative reasoning involved in achieving her verdict. The incident in question stems from a collision between the appellant and the complainant in a “no-contact” Ottawa senior men’s hockey league. The incident occurred at the end stages of the game, where the complainant, and the appellant collided causing the complainant lacerations to the face, two missing front teeth, and a concussion.

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.

but when you’ve been injured or discriminated against at work, you want an injury and discrimination attorney who knows the law, cares personally about your case, and is committed to getting justice.

FACTS Carey sustained injuries in an automobile accident for which he received monies from the original tortfeasor. The Plaintiff, due to his injuries, was referred by his doctor to Stephen Connelly, a physical therapist at Indiana Physical Therapy, Inc. Connelly preformed a manipulation technique, “compressions”” on the Plaintiff during his third session which caused a great deal of discomfort. Connelly “laid his chest across my arms and used his body to put force on my arms and push” (App. at 124.) Carey claimed the therapist only stopped when he “broke out in tears and screamed out in pain.”

A case was reported in the California civil courts where Dawn Diaz sustained injuries after she was hit by a car that geared of the freeway after colliding with a truck. Diaz sued Karen Tagliaferri, the car driver and Jose Carcamo the truck driver, working for Sugar Transport for the damages. Besides, Carcamo’s employer was also sued on the basis that the employer was vicariously liable for the damages, and the company was negligent for hiring and retaining Carcamo. The jury ruled that the defendant was guilty and would meet a fee of $22,566,373 for damages sustained by Diaz and fault was apportioned to Tagliaferri, Carcamo, and Sugar Transport Company. Based on tort principles in the contract law, damages caused by an employee

Most times in self-defense, the accused puts across a countercharge against the accuser on one or more grounds. In such exceptional cases, the ‘pure comparative negligence rule’ is applied. Under this rule, the fault(s) of both the accuser are also taken into account in detail.

Before moving further, it is important to understand the term ‘negligence’ with reference to tortious liability.