Dillon v Dunnes Stores [1966] IR 397 In this case an incident took place at the defendant 's store, where store detectives asked many questions from shop assistant and also director of the company, and was found guilty of pilfering store goods. The plaintiff had to be and was detained for a long time in the defendant 's offices and questioned intrrogated by and about the and suspected alleged theft. She was told that she was was ordered that until a written confession os made she will not go out confession, which she eventually did. The plaintiff claimed damages for false imprisonment, and for conspiracy to imprison unlawfully. At the trial of the action, damages of £5000 were awarded against each of the five defendants: the company, two directors of the company, and the two store detectives involved. In the Supreme Court, an appeal on liability was allowed in respect of three of the defendants, and a new …show more content…
Cooper v O 'Connell, Unreported, Supreme Court, 5 June 1997 Cooper v O 'Connell was a case of a dentist.was liable for professional negligence. The plaintiff was a victim of had undertaken extensive but unsuccessful dental work of the defendant. After a long series of visits, lasting several years, the defendant accepted that he could not remedy the not successful work and referred the plaintiff to another dentist. This dentist was also unable to help the plaintiff, and the plaintiff ultimately attended a third practitioner in Dublin, who over the course of several years was able to antidote the situation. Nevertheless, the plaintiff suffered continuing pain. High Court gave a descion according to which, the defendant was found liable in negligence, and exemplary damages were refused. The plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages of £80,000 pain and suffering which they suffered in the past and £25,000 for future pain and distress Damages for financial loss were also awarded (£50,000). The assessment of damages was appealed by the plaintiff
The Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center case was then appealed by the plaintiffs. Facts: This is a civil case. The Plaintiff of this case is Timothy W. Gallagher, the parent of Jack O’Bannon Gallagher (deceased). Jack was sent to the emergency room after his high school nurse believed he might have abused a substance in which he was acting strangely and had elevated blood pressure. The decedent was omitted into the hospital and was seen by multiple medical professionals who evaluated both his physical health and mental state.
As I mentioned earlier not everyone is aware of what The Family and Medical Leave Act is, what the law is for, and how it can be or should be used when they should if the company where they work employs more than 50 people. By law employers are supposed to inform all employees about FMLA. In the case of Jeffrey Angstadt verses Staples Contract and Commercial, Inc. Angstadt was wrongfully fired because he did not know about the FMLA and could not balance his work responsibilities and taking care of his ill wife.
In this case, a divided married couple Charles and Tracey Thurman experienced a vicious split-up. Documents report, the first time Tracey had contact with the Torrington Police Department (TPD) (October 1982) was after her husband became violent towards Charles Thurman, Jr (son) out of the residence. Sadly, officers from the TPD refused to take Tracey's complaint resulting in the escalation of Charles violent behavior. As the violence escalated on November 09, 1982 while Tracey was sitting in her vehicle Charles approached, and started yelling threats and untimely resulting in him smashing her windshield. This was all witnessed by TPD Officer Neil Gemelli as he stood on the street watching Charles activities.
C) As a Christian individual, Family Research Policy Council is a non-profit organization that aligns with my beliefs in the world. I always to strive to “do the best for the greater good” for the unborn, the oppressed, and the sick. All throughout my life, I have fought for religious liberties, pro-life, and families. Through landmark court cases, such as Engel v. Vital and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, they revealed the critical need for Christian based representatives in policy.
Mr. Williams was arrested for abducting a ten-year-old girl in Des Moines, Iowa. Prior to the kidnapping, Williams had recently escaped from a mental hospital. Williams called a Des Moines lawyer and informed him that he’d like to turn himself in. The lawyer advised Williams that he would represent him as soon as he got back to Des Moines, however, while he was in Davenport he would call a lawyer he knew to represent him for the time being. He then advised Williams to turn himself in to the Davenport police.
The case of the State v Rusk involved the defendant Edward Rusk being convicted of 2nd degree rape. There was controversy as to if the defendant actually committed the act of rape due to the circumstances. The case involves a female named Pat. She decides to meet up one night with her friend Terry and go bar hopping.
Case Analysis Paper / Discussion MBA 623 Name: Patel Mukeshkumar Shamalbhai Paper # Turner v. Hershey Chocolate USA, 440 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 2006) 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.
Lucy Morgan enrolled in an online dating service which, she says, promised to set young women up on dates. After using the service for a period of time, Ms. Morgan discovered several of her co-workers and others had actually been sent out on dates with the same men. She continued by stating she discovered some of the men were not only married, but related to the owner. She then concluded by accusing the owner, Mr. Paul Rambin, of fraud and misrepresentation. Mr. Rambin refuted the claims by stating he did not guarantee marriage and he did not process background checks on the members as declared on his website.
Part 2 Occupiers' liability in Australia The defendant in this case , Xerox Supermarket , has an very important role which is identified by the Australia law as an occupier. Hence , I will try to refer to the occupiers' liability law and relative regulation ,especially from the passed legislation of Western Australia , South Australia and Victoria . Actually , the occupiers' liability law still obeys the general principles of negligence like standard of care and proper criterion . However , it can provide the judger a more practical and accurate view on the possible liability of the supermarket as a typical premise of retailers .
Legal decisions The supreme decision regarding health care in prison is Estelle v. Gamble in 1976. J.W. Gamble was a state prisoner within the Texas Department of Corrections who injured his back when a cotton bale fell on him. Over the next three months, he complained of back and chest pains, was subject to administrative segregation for refusing to work because of continuing pains, he was twice refuse permission to see a doctor. So Gamble filed his complain in court, under section 1983, claim and unusual punishment in his medical care.
The legal definition of a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another person. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which resulted in harm and are the most heard legal proceedings. Being that torts are various and plenty it must also be stated that a tort can be subjective depending upon the parties involved. Not only can a tort be subjective to the parties involved but also the litigation involved with defining that tort by a court of law is also subject to prejudice by those who may or may not see it as a wrongful act. While tort law may be a valid means of regulation in jurisdictions with established and accessible bodies of common law,
Why 2nd Amendment Is So Popular Background Information The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today.
In the case of State v. Barrett (1996), a drug detection team was brought in to conduct a random drug search of the high school on May 3, 1995 in St. Tammany Parish. Six classes were chosen by the principal, who had mentioned some of the selected classes were known to have some of the "problem" students, including the 18 year-old defendant. During the third classroom search, the defendant 's classroom, students were asked to empty their pockets and leave the room. The dogs were brought in and one of the dog 's alerted a smell on the defendant 's wallet. After the principal searched the wallet and found $400 in cash, he placed it in a different location, which the dog alerted on once again.
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
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. 2 & 3 -The Product was so defective that the product was unreasonably dangerous and cause the plaintiff’s injury. It was evident the product was defective since as soon the jugs were handed over to Mrs. Mabee by the delivery driver, the jugs shattered causing injury instantly. Jeanny