Archie will focus on the fact that Marella did not have written records of the cheerleader’s performance readiness. Moreover, it is her opinion that a coach cannot supervise and spot more than one stunt group at a time and, on the day of the plaintiff’s injury, four to five groups were practicing at the same time. Archie will also base her opinion on what a reasonable coach should do as opposed to any rules or guidelines that were in place at the time of the plaintiff’s injury. Moreover, she will testify regarding “critical height” that is a certain, unspecified, height at which the risk of catastrophic head injuries become more likely. Archie will opine that the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries was that the group lacked experience, …show more content…
She will testify regarding the plaintiff’s skill and experience as a cheerleader and her skill and experience in the back spot position. She will testify that she worked with the plaintiff as a cheerleader on the high school team her sophomore and junior years as well as working with her on the GCA team and when she worked for GCA. She considered the plaintiff to be a skilled back spot, probably the best on the team. She was a great cheerleader, which is why Marella had made her a captain. Marella will also testify regarding her skill, training, experience as a coach, certifications and related course work. She will also testify regarding her coaching philosophy, use of conditioning an progressions in coaching. She believes that the plaintiff’s stunt group had mastered the stunt before September 6, 2011. Marella will testify regarding the skill and ability of the athletes in the plaintiff’s stunt group at the time of her injury. Particularly, she will testify that the cheerleaders that the plaintiff was working with were all experienced and had performed this particular stunt before. Also, she will testify that practice for the year had commenced in June 2011 and the team practiced approximately 3-4 times per week. She will testify on the day of the plaintiff’s injury she was properly supervising practice and that she was only four to five feet away from the group when the injury
Plaintiff was further prejudiced by this conduct in that she was required to testify at her deposition including questioning from Defendant Medic East’s attorneys who had video in their possession of the accident yet still feigned ignorance at said deposition. 10. In their response to the cross motion, it bears repeating that Defendant Medic East does not dispute being in possession of the video in dispute, nor do they dispute their failure to turn the video over from when it was originally demanded until after they filed for summary judgment. They simply argue “we turned it over eventually”, completely ignoring the severe prejudice and trying to downplay the bad faith stemming from their conduct.
RESPONDENT’S ANSWER In response to the first issue, Marshard explains “my file notes state I met with Mr. Sylvia to explain that the Court would appoint him an attorney to explore his 5th Amendment right and to discuss with him whether he wished to waive or assert that right.” Marshard maintains that she wanted Silvia to know he was a victim in this matter and not a defendant. She states this was important because “(1) the pending clerk’s hearing where charges were being pursued by Mr. Petersen and (2) Mr. Sylvia had often been a defendant when the court appointed him an attorney.” Marshard claims Silvia “does not always appear to accurately grasp the situation.”
Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.
The jury was shown videos of more normal times for the family, when things seemed to be going well. Expert testimony also played a role in the outcome of the first trial. The evidence presented in this case was able to help the jury come to a decision when determining Mrs. Yates final
I saw some bruises on her, but she said she was fine”. Battered woman syndrome plays a large part in the defense and although one could avoid her releasing her bias to the jury, she seems like her presence would be more hazardous than good for the defence. The only things that she could say that would be
The first thing that Janet has to do is establish a prima facie case. In order to prove a prima facie case, she would have to prove the following: a. She applied for the position, plant foreman, which at the time was available. b. That the plaintiff, (Janet), was qualified for that position. c. That she was ultimately turned down for the position.
An Opening Your Honor, the opposing counsel, members of the jury, this case is about the unreliability of evidence and an insufficiency to meet the burden of proof that is required to convict Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor with a violation of Nita Liquor Commission Regulation 3.102. This case is to be decided on four issues: 1) Knowledge. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated? 2) Sale.
Tyler’s loose associations thought process and education not meeting a high school diploma, it is only fair to evaluate her competency to stand trial. The Competency Screening Test (CST) will determine whether the individual can function well in their intended role in the case or proceedings. The CST screening tool involves using case scenarios where the defendant will write a response that will be rated on a 0-2 scale (Nicholson, 1991). Also, the Georgia Court Competency Test will assist in determining whether Ms. Tyler understands her physical position and functional role as well as the participant’s in court and their roles in the case. The Fitness Interview Test will determine Ms. Tyler’s understanding of legal terms and evaluate her competence in making a legal decision.
The plaintiff was suing based on failure to take the proper guidance and action to prevent
However, this story of Mrs. Stephens being helpless is all the defense has. But how can you, the jury, believe a story from a woman that would lie to doctors, to police,
Everyone was told to maintain silence, stand up and following that everyone was told to sit down. Then the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Mr REYNOLDS stood up, introduced himself and his party and was given the chance to speak. Following that he started to describe the case to the judges and explaining and providing references from previous cases and also mentions what Polish Club Limited breached. After that the defendant’s lawyer that is MR CLAY was allowed to speak for the defendant who argued for a while and defended Polish Club Limited. The Honour and the other judges questioned Mr Reynolds, the plaintiff’s lawyer, about evidence and reference provided to make sure whether the claim they are making against Polish Club Limited comply and whether Polish Club Limited breached the law.
Many orthopedic experts consider cheerleading a sport and encourage other associations to do so as well. By accepting cheerleading as a sport, the athletes would be given more money for mats, increasing the safety. In 2011 alone, 3,700 cheerleaders went to the emergency room and account for 66% of the catastrophic injuries for female athletes (Brungart). Doctors believe that if more people gave cheerleading had greater recognition, many injuries could be prevented with the purchase of mats. The most recent organization to consider cheerleading a sport is the International Olympic Committee.
Being a cheerleader takes a positive attitude and the willingness to work hard! It takes commitment, self-discipline, and dedication. It takes energy and skill and it takes each of us working together to be our very best! Cheerleaders are role models at school and in the community.
The defendants argue that a student is not the same thing as an employee. Therefore, vicaious liability does not apply to Folk, because he has the freedom of a student and not an employee. Issue: Who is reliable for a student’s actions during a sporting event?
Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Paper # JANET M. TURNER, Appellant v. HERSHEY CHOCOLATE USA Word Count: _______ I. Citation: Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 [3d Cir. 2006] II. Issue and Rule: The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability.