Legal Case Study Of Trina's Toys

That morning, a fire broke out on the ninth floor of the factory. Nobody knows what had started the fire, however, some believed a cigarette thrown on the oily floor could have started the fire. The terrible working conditions caused 146 out of the 600 workers to lose their lives. The “oily floors (caused) the fire to spread quickly” (What Went Wrong?). The fire escape that they had was rusty and it collapsed, making it unusable during the fire. The fire trucks had ladders that only reached the sixth floor. The young women and children were jumping out of the windows to their deaths to get away from the fire. The owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory were blamed for all of the deaths of the young girls. They were blamed because the fire marshals found that the doors were locked, locking the girls inside the room and causing them to be burned alive. The girls that did not burn alive are the ones that jumped out the window to get away. The fall caused every girl that jumped to lose their lives. The court case says that the lawyer asks the owners why they would locked the girls in the room in the first place. Mr. Harris claims they locked the doors because they had “ten dollars, or fifteen dollars” stolen the year before the fire (Testimony by Workers). The owners claimed that this is why the locked the girls in the rooms while they worked. The court ruled Mr. Harris and Mr.

The case of R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie is an interesting case, where the city got into an agreement with a private corporation, for the disposal of waste that was within the city. The city was unable to maintain their operation of waste disposal. The private company started piling waste into the creek, to which they were eventually charged, as well as the city. This essay will be organized by answering the questions in chronological order; to which in the first question, I will be looking heavily into the case of R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie and Roach. It will incorporate the regulatory offences and the mental blameworthiness and how strict liability acts as a balance between the two. It will also include the defence of due diligence. Which would bring in the next question of absolute liability offences. I will be focusing on several other cases presented in class, R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie and Roach to further explain the question.

May the roommate be considered a keeper or harborer of the dog, when she cared for and lived with the dog that bit her finger, causing her to receive eight stitches?

A civil lawsuit is normally filed against those who are negligent in order to obtain monetary compensation for damages. In the movie, the two corporations are found negligent in their actions of disposing of waste into the town of Woburn’s water supply. As a result, Attorney Jan Schlichtmann filed a suit against the two corporations and used geological evidence, experts, and eyewitnesses to prove the involvement of the two corporations. According to the textbook, Elements of negligence are as follows: abiding by standard practice, the duty of care, breaching the duty of care, casual connection, and actual harm. The two corporations were supposed to abide by standard practice, however, by owning plants alongside the contaminated water supply, they both breached their duty to properly dispose of waste. The contaminated water supply then resulted in the death of little children, and parents had to bury their own children. Therefore, there is no reason not to have prosecuted the two corporations as all the elements of negligence are displayed here. Consequently, both corporations whether it was intentional or accidental, committed an act of negligence. Although nothing can be done to undo the losses, both companies must have apologized and compensated the damages

It is first important to understand a few facts in the case. Hobby Lobby did not deny coverage of all birth control options under its insurance plan. They agreed to cover the contraception options used by the majority of the women, the contraception which prevents fertilization of the egg. Condoms, diaphragms, withdrawal, natural family planning, and hormones causing production of eggs to stop are examples of the first type of contraceptives covered by Hobby Lobby’s insurance plan. Megan Best (2014) says, “We need to remember, then, that the Hobby Lobby case is not about all contraceptives, but only those that challenge the ethical values of those that value human life from the time of fertilization”. Hobby Lobby is a Christian based company who values the human life beginning the moment an egg is fertilized. Because of this belief, Hobby Lobby denied coverage for specific birth control options such as hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUD’s) and morning-after pills. Hobby Lobby believes this

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.” However, Plaintiff failed to explain what instructions were or were not given.

The plaintiff in this case is Mary and the defendant is the Kingston High School (KHS). Mary has a cause of action for her physical injury sustained during the football game and economic loss arising from her injury. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for negligence. The high school has vicarious liability for its cheerleaders, football players and coaches.

The interviews for this investigation took place at the following locations: The claimant’s interview was conducted at a Taco Bell restaurant at 2950 West Orangethorpe Ave. Fullerton CA 92833. The interviews with the Human Resources Department was conducted at the Insured’s address, located at Fullerton Pacific Interiors, 1519 E. Chapman Ave. Fullerton, CA 92831.

Whether Myra, world renowned supermodel, has a sufficient claim against CARDWARE and Candie Cardigan a model hired by CARDWARE, for negligence due to suffering a broken nose and cut to her face from the defendant 's shoes.

For most companies, a negligence case can become very costly even leading to bankruptcy. Consequently, do to increase in consumer injuries from defective products, the government created the he Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) as a means to help manage consumer protection. Furthermore, the recall initiative addresses the situation of informing and/or removing consumer and companies about defective or dangerous products in the marketplace. What’s more, within the CPSC, various statutes passed by Congress, help in regulating safety for a variety of industries; for instance, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act protects children under age five from poisoning caused to open containers; or the more obscure Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act establishes safety standards associated with pools and spas dangers (Seaquist, 2012).

After reading your opinion regarding Disney catastrophe, the story of Ms. Liebeck, who was severely burned by McDonalds’ coffee, came up to my mind. Her story started in 1992 when she bought a cup of coffee from McDonalds, she stopped at McDonalds’ drivethrough window so that she can add some cream and sugar to her coffee. She put the cup her legs to remove the lid and unfortunately, she spilled the whole cup on her lap. After that, she was admitted to the hospital due to sever burns. I remember this case as it received a lot of publicity, and I remember how people were saying that this is why McDonalds put “caution handle with care I’m hot “ in their hot beverage’s cups. In contrary, other people were saying that the statement on the cup was

Company shall not be responsible or liable for any loss or damage of any sort incurred as the

The contract was between her friend and the shop owner. However, as the bottle was not clear, the shop owner could not inspect it. Therefore, it was not the fault of the café owner. The Defendant argued that there was no duty of care towards Mrs Donoghue as there was no contract between them. They used the judgement in the case of Winterbottom V Wright (1842) 10 M & W 109. In Winterbottom V Wright , it was decided that no duty of care existed between the defendant and the plaintiff as there was no contract in existence. In Donoghue V Stevenson , it was decided that a manufacturer owes a duty of care towards the consumer where the defect in question is a latent defect. In this case, the bottle which contained the snail was a dark brown, opaque bottle which could not be inspected by Mrs Donoghue. It was found then that the defect was a latent defect. As well as this, Lord Atkin decided to move away from the traditional law as he saw it as too restrictive and ultimately unfair, ‘in addressing the question whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care, Lord Atkin declared that everyone owed such a duty to his “neighbour”,’ Lord Atkin came up with a new principle for determining whether or not a duty of care exists, called the ‘Neighbour

As you all may know, Susan Jones, the manager of the pesticide department has been caught selling untested pesticides to our customers in order to reach her sales goal for the year. Mrs. Jones holds full responsibility for our company losing $50,000 as well as giving our company a dishonorable reputation by putting the untested pesticides on the market. Mrs. Jones has complete control of the pesticide department, even though employees under her went along with this scheme; she is ultimately responsible for the harm done to our customers and our company. Mrs. Jones decided to put an untested product on the shelves knowing the product was potentially harmful. Mrs. Jones claims to validate her actions by blaming the company for the unrealistic

There are three primary theories on which a product liability claim can be brought- negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability. It is important to understand the amount of weight each one of these claims carry. Although negligence and breach of warranty are alleged in most product liability cases, they play a secondary role in comparison to strict liability. Under strict liability, the injured person does not have the burden of proving negligence. Therefore, strict liability is the easiest of the three to prove and used most often in product liability claims. Nonetheless, it is common for plaintiff attorneys to try to prove negligence in addition to strict liability because it can do a better job of setting the stage and will often stir the jury’s emotions, leading to higher amounts in damages