In this case, Frank, a resident from California purchased a table saw the local Home Depot store in California. Delta Company or “DC” produces and sells many products, including table saws. Their headquarters is located in New York, but they also must do business around the world. Although Delta Company sells and produces the table saws, the Home Depot store also carries them in stock. One day, Frank was in his garage when he needed to reach a toolbox off of a high shelf in his garage. So, he decided to put the table saw at an angle against the cabinet and climbed onto the table saw in hopes of reaching his toolbox. Frank loses his balance and is injured when he falls onto the blade. Frank is now suing Delta Company for his injuries, at a total of $300,000. The legal issue in this case boils down to whose fault it was for the injuries Frank sustained. Was it Frank’s fault or Delta Company’s fault? In this case, Frank is a resident of California, but can choose to have the case brought against Delta Company in California or New York. Frank is able to decide in this case where he wants his trial to be heard. Frank can sue in California because he is a resident and homeowner there. However, he could also potentially choose to have the trial in New York because that is where the company’s headquarters are located. Home Depot is a well renowned home …show more content…
Delta Company will win this case because Frank must be mature enough to make a just decision. We can conclude Frank is mature enough, because he has a garage which means he must be a homeowner. Delta Company winning this case all goes to back to what a reasonable person would do. There is only one-way Frank could potentially win this case. The only possible way Frank could win is if Delta Company failed to put adequate warning labels on the table saw Frank purchased. After the trial, Delta Company will win the case against
Ms. Rios employs kids from the local university to work in the store and often has trouble finding good employees. In order to keep costs low, Ms. Rios’ insurance policy has a high premium of $200,000, so any settlement would come out of her pocket. Karen Logan is a student at the local university where she was a member of the basketball team on an annual scholarship of $15,000.
Therefore, Cansco cannot held liable for negligence in this case since Susan knowingly purchased the dented
The complaint sought damages for civil theft, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, conversion, conspiracy to commit conversion, constructive trust, unjust enrichment, fraudulent transfer, conspiracy to effect a fraudulent transfer, and equitable lien (FindLaw's). Once the criminal charges were resolved, Therma Builders moved for summary judgment in the civil action, contending that Peterson was stalling her liability to Therma Builders in the civil action. Then on November 1, 2005 the trail court granted final summary judgement in favor of Therma Builders in the civil action. Peterson appeals this final summary judgement, challenging both the finding of liability and the amount of damages awarded. The final summary judgment contains no findings as to the amount of damages for which Peterson is civilly liable to Therma Builders.
Steve Shoultz and Russell Button Reptiled this case from top to bottom. Despite stipulated liability, minor car damage, lapses in treatment, inaccurate medical records, and a difficult witness prep; Steve and Russell were able to use the Reptile to convey the hypocrisy and betrayal their client suffered at the hands of their own insurance company. We found out halfway into the article that Steve and Russell decided to forgo $40,000 of the client’s past medical bills. This is in a case where the Plaintiff’s son who was in the strike zone of the impact walked away unscathed. The client walked away unscathed, but for anxiety and pain and suffering.
Memorandum To: Attorney of Jennifer Lawson From: Jackson Biegler Date: September 19, 2017 Re: Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale v. Jennifer Lawson for Breach of Contract 1) Memo Introduction a) Greene’s legal claim against Ms. Lawson is supported by a confidentiality agreement that was signed by Ms. Lawson at the very beginning of her employment at Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale. Ms. Lawson agreed not to disclose any processes that she was going to learn at Greene’s, including ever-gold, by signing the agreement.
The court granted Nestles request for transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Reason : The court pointed out that the plaintiff resides in South Carolina, her daughters injuries occurred there and her medical treatment was there and continues to be there therefore making South Carolina the appropriate place for the litigation to proceed. A court should not be required to expend resources on cases that have little relationship to the district
The City asserts that it was entitled to an opportunity to cure the discovery failure before sanctions could be awarded. Dismissal with prejudice is a sanction that should be imposed only in those rare instances where the conduct of a party is so egregious that no other sanction will meet the demands of justice.” The appellees sued the City, seeking damages allegedly suffered by them when Eubanks Creek overflowed ad flooded their
The writer also has had State Farm insurance since 1975. Every claim submitted has been paid without any problem. Having been in two tornados coupled with the other items of interest brought the attention to this particular lawsuit. What you think the outcome of this case/issue should be and
In response to the suit filed, Betty’s lawyer filed for a motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction does not impede the trial courts reach to try out-of-state defendants. The ensuing issue for the trial court is to determine in-personam jurisdiction. This form of jurisdiction focuses on the residence, location, and activities of the defendant (Mallor, 30). Traditional in-personam jurisdiction would not apply to Betty.
Expectation damages would have left Walgreen’s indifferent between the damages and performance by Sara Creek. Walgreen’s expected to make a certain profit, but would lose profit from a competing store and pharmacy as the anchor tenant. The difficulty in this case, and expectation damages in general, is that the value of performance is sometimes hard to quantify. Calculating expectation damages involves projecting future revenues and costs of Walgreen’s without the presence of Phar-Mor and determining the impact of the addition of Phar-Mor. The court determined that there was too much uncertainty in this calculation to award damages, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that Sara Creek would have paid damages monthly.
Workers Rights During 1911, workers did not have many rights. The tragedy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire caused 146 innocent women and children to lose their lives. The people of the public started to realize the harsh conditions that the blue collared workers of America have to deal with. They had absolutely no safety regulations or rules.
In Cal’s case, on determining who he can file a lawsuit against and who would be liable for his injuries would be first be Anne. Anne goes first because she was the one that made the final impact and that incident was the one that cause Cal to loose both of his legs. So Cal can sue Anne, for being the reason he can’t walk now. Even though Cal was in a car accident minutes before that didn’t cause his legs just minor injuries. Anne would be liable for any and all expenses, any pain and suffering and also if the incident made him loose income from the injury.
Kelly slipped on a woodchip dropped by other customers and got injured . However , the court considered the supermarket still fallen below the required standard of care . And the plaintiff won the case .Because they did not have the adequate cleaning system in their management for that area. On the opposite, for Griffin v Coles Myer Ltd in 1991 ,the plaintiff lost the case as an end .
The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual. The issue is whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment in the favor of the defendant because the shaker table rotation rule at issue was an essential function of the employee’s job.
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