Preview

Davis V. the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Case

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
927 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Davis V. the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Case
Davis v. The Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County Case

What was the legal issue in this case?
The plaintiff, Davis is suing Dona Ana County. The plaintiff was a patient at Mesilla Valley Hospital (MVH) in their inpatient mental facility, while she was in their care one of the mental health technicians, Joseph Herrera sexually assaulted her. She is suing the County of Dona Ana, because Herrera used to be a detention sergeant for the county, while employed there he was found to have been sexually harassing and abusing female inmates. His superiors Steele and Mochen were aware of his misconducts and were planning on suspending him, however prior to the suspension Herrera resigned. Upon his resignation Herrera asked his superiors for a letter of recommendation, he was given a letter of recommendation stating that he was an exemplary employee, and one that they would hire again. The legal issue in this case is to determine whether or not the county’s letter of recommendation cause third-party harm to the plaintiff, Davis? Did the positive feedback in the letter cause MVH to hire someone who was potentially unsafe to their patients? (Walsh, 2009).
Why does the court conclude that Doña Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)?
In this case the court concluded that Dona Ana County could be held liable for a negligent referral on the basis that each citizen has a basic responsibility to not bring harm to one another, and to make every effort to stop harm from happening to someone. In this case the County did not take the proper steps to ensure public safety. Without overly speculating on all the various scenarios that might or might not have played out had the County provided truthful information, at the end of the day the County not only omitted truth; which is misleading within itself, but they also falsified the information that was provided to Herrera’s future employers taking away their ability to make fully educated



References: Krasnow, W. (n.d.). Employer liability for employee misconduct. Retrieved April 20, 2013 from http://www.haslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/ Employer%20 Liability%20for%20Employee%20Misconduct.pdf. Walsh, D. J. (2009). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    In the case of White v. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern, Mrs. White is suing Mr. Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern in the death of her husband, Mr. White. Mr. Edward Hard was a patron of the tavern the night of the accident with Mr. and Mrs. White. Mr. Hard was in a relationship with Mrs. White before she married Mr. White. Mr. Hard saw Mr. and Mrs. White leave the tavern on this night and followed them out the door. Mrs. White observed Mr. Hard drinking several alcoholic beverages while they were there. When Mr. and Mrs. White where leaving Mr. Hard confronted Mr. White telling him that “she should be my wife” and “this is not over.” After Mr. and Mrs. White got in their car and were leaving the establishment, Mr. Hard followed them driving recklessly. He was swerving across the road, driving in the opposite lane, and hitting mailboxes. His recklessness and inability to drive due to being intoxicated resulted in him crashing into Mr. and Mrs. White’s vehicle ultimately killing Mr. White and severely injuring Mrs. White. This court case took place in United States District Court in the Northern District of Indiana. This is court case number 82A04-8876-CB285, White vs. Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern. The lawyers in this case are Benjamin Walton, Jordan Van Meter who represent the defendants Patrick Gibbs and O’Malley’s Tavern and Jackson Welch, Amanda Babot who represent the plaintiff Debbie White.…

    • 1382 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Stokely is responsible for injuring the motorcyclist while driving a vehicle from AAA Auto Dealers. Employers are vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. In the respondeat superior doctrine, in most cases, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of employment. John Stokely used the company’s vehicle for personal reasons, regardless of what they were, and negligently collided into and injured someone on a motorcycle. John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. Not only did he use the company’s car for personal reasons, his boss accompanied him on the visit to a family member’s house for dinner. The boss was excusing John Stokely’s behavior, allowing him to use company property for a different purpose other than what it was intended for. John Stokely’s boss accompanied him to his cousin’s house so it can be argued that John Stokely had “permission” to do what he wanted. The boss will be held responsible by the owner(s) of AAA Auto Dealers as well by allowing John Stokely to act outside of his job description.…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In a wrongful death suit for Stephan Andres the trial court did not err by rejecting the plaintiffs offered jury instructions for not providing a supervisor in the locker room required by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 65521, subd. (a), requiring that every pool be under the care of a competent person, which is not related to a lifeguard but the person in charge of the sanitation and hygiene of the pool. Negligence in itself only pertains if the person suffering the death or injury was one of the relatives for which the protection statute, ordinance, or regulation was adopted. Stephen, a victim of drowning rather than unsanitary facilities, was not related to the person whose protection section 65521 was…

    • 406 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Plaintiff Robert Lopez flied a claim against Adelanto Stadium, Inc. claiming negligence on fault of Defendants insufficient design and/or installation of netting protection from foul balls under California Civil Code of Procedure §1714. Compl. ¶ 3. Also, Defendant’s negligence in failure to warn of dangers of foul balls. Compl ¶ 7. Mr. Lopez alleges that Adelanto Stadium, Inc. is liable on the sole grounds that they own the stadium in which Mr. Lopez suffered said injuries. Adelanto Stadium, Inc. moves to dismiss because Mr. Lopez’s claim fails as a matter of law, since it lacks sufficient factual matter to render a finding of negligence.…

    • 1264 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    2. Why does the court conclude that Dona Ana County could be held liable for negligent referral (misrepresentation)?…

    • 1055 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In this paper I will discuss the case of Davis v. the Board of County Commissioners of Doña Ana County. In this case Joseph Herrera an employee at the detention center was accused of sexually harassing the female inmates. Herrera’s supervisor at MVH where he was employed, advise Herrera that they will taking actions to discipline him due to the complaints and Herrera resigns. Herrera asks his employers to give him a letter of recommendation for an employer he was applying for and the supervisors give him an outstanding recommendation. His supervisors neglect to tell the prospective employer that at the time of his employment he was under investigation for sexual harassment. Because they did not disclose that information they employed Herrera and he repeated his actions.…

    • 1761 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In the case Ridley v. California the Court decided on whether the searching of a smart phone of someone placed under arrest without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. David Ridley was arrested for possession of firearms. During the arrest an officer seized Ridley’s cell phone and searched his phone without obtaining a warrant from a judge. The officer found evidence that involves him in an earlier gang shooting and charged him in the shooting. During his trial the California Court of Appeals ruled that the search and the obtaining evidence from his cell phone was valid. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court decide unanimously that police need a warrant to search a suspect’s cell phone.…

    • 127 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the case US v. Calandra (1974), Calandra was being questioned by the federal grand jury about loan sharking business. The reason the jury was asking these question were based on the evidence obtained at his company. Calandra didn’t want to answer any questions because he felt that the search of the company was an unlawful search and that it violated his fourth amendment exclusionary rule. The refusal to answer the grand jury, was what was being question about this case. Calandra felt like because of the exclusionary rule unde0r the fourth amendment he didn’t have to answer but he was wrong. The supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was only applicable in criminal courts and was not meant to be seen as a right but as a way to reduce unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by police ("Oyez: US v. Calandra," n.d.).…

    • 1275 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the Supreme Court ruling of Davis v. Davis, Justice Daughtrey created an epoche of the law when she, unlike previous judges, based her decision on the recognition of a new category more relevant to the case rather than relying on one previously established. She casts aside conventional thoughts and residual knowledge by declaring the case to present a "question of first impression" which will require the court to act through common law. Although Justice Daughtrey relates other statutes, cases, and constitutions to the case, she refuses to follow any precedent established by similar situations.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Supreme Court case of Sessions v. Morales-Santana deals with the issue of whether or not a distinction based on gender in establishing derivative citizenship for immigrants violates the 5th amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The questions presented by this case are: (1) Whether Congress’s decision to require different physical presence requirements for unwed citizen mothers than unwed citizen fathers in order to pass citizenship to a foreign- born child violates the 5th amendment's guarantee of equal protection and (2) whether the court of appeals was mistaken in granting citizenship in the absence of any statutory authority.Thusly, the rights of immigrants and the right against gender discrimination are both at stake for the petitioner of this case. The case was granted on June 28, 2016, oral argument was held before the Supreme Court on November 9, 2016, and the case was decided on June 12, 2017.…

    • 415 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1976, the California Supreme Court ruled that psychotherapists have a duty to warn and protect potential victims if their patients made threats or otherwise behaved as if they presented a serious danger of violence to another. This ruling happened because of the Tarasoff Case of 1969, in which the court determined the need for therapists to protect the public was more important than protecting patient-therapist confidentiality. (Vitelli 1)…

    • 615 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Issue. Was Estrada entitled under the law to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress?…

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Tarasoff vs Regents

    • 363 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Issue: Whether when the therapist’s failure to warn plaintiffs of the danger to Tatiana was a breach of duty to safeguard their patient and the public?…

    • 363 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Edward Donahue filed a complaint against the Copiague Union Free School District in Suffolk County Supreme Court for monetary damages for “educational malpractice” and the negligent breach of a constitutionally imposed duty to educate. Donahue claims that even though he received a certificate of graduation from Copiague Senior High School, he is not able to read. The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court upheld the decision.…

    • 324 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    (2005) Court Decisions. Malpractice: Inadvertent Disclosures to Screened Lawyer Create Viable Malpractice Claim Against Firm. ABA/BNA Lawyer’s Manual of Professional Conduct, 21 Law Man Prof. Conduct 518. Retrieved Nov. 19, 2005 fromhttp://lawyersmanual.bna.com/mopw/3200/split_display.adp?fedfid=3000064&vname=mopcnot&fcn=2&wsn=217&fn=3000064&split=0…

    • 1722 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays

Related Topics