Preview

Mccune V. Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
272 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Mccune V. Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range
The parties (Who is the plaintiff? The defendant? The appellant? The appellee?)

Christine McCune, Appellant, v. MYRTLE BEACH INDOOR SHOOTING RANGE, Defendant.

The history of the case (Who won at trial court? Who won at the lower appellate level? Who won in this decision?)

Trial court granted summary judgment to the Range on the basis of the exculpatory language in the release of liability signed by McCune. Myrtle Beach Indoor Shooting Range won at both levels.

The facts (What happened that caused the plaintiff to sue?)
During her play, the mask was loose and ill fitting which resulted in her mask being raised off her head and obstructing her view and a paintball pellet striking her in the eye and rendering her legally blind.
The plaintiff's theory (Why he thinks he is right)
She thinks she is right because she tried to get another mask and was unsuccessful and resulted in a permanent injury.
The defendant's theory (Why she thinks she is right)
Because the plaintiff signed a liability waiver releasing the shooting range of any fault.
The legal issue (a yes or no question)
Was the plaintiff injury caused by negligence by the defendant, based on the failure of the mask to fit properly outside of the waiver signed?
The holding of the court (Yes or no--answers the legal issue).
No
Opinion
I believe the defendant covered their end by having the plaintiff sign a waiver in case any injury were to occur and the defendant knew the mask was ill fitting, but she still went out to play paintball. She is liable for her own injuries that

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Culpepper V. Weihrauch KG

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages

    On August 12, 1996, Plaintiff, Ann Culpepper, filled action against defendant, Hermann Weihrauch KG, ETC., seeking damages for injuries she sustained after an accidental shooting from the gun she owned that was manufactured by Weihrauch. Ann Culpepper imposed liability on Weihrauch under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine of 1979. This doctrine provides liability “if a company manufactured, designed or sold a defective product, which by unreasonably unsafe conditions, injured someone or damaged their property when such product, unaltered, was put to its intended use.”…

    • 515 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    ISSUE Is the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s injuries despite the fact that the plaintiff had singed…

    • 258 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Plaintiff assumed the risk when he decided to not wear protective headgear while operating his motorcycle.…

    • 304 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    "In determining whether liability exists under a duty-risk analysis, a plaintiff must prove that the conduct in question was the cause-in-fact of the resulting harm, that [the] defendant owed a duty to [the] plaintiff which [the] defendant breached and that the risk of harm was within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached." The court used a different set of principles to determine DOTD’s liability. “The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that: (1) the DOTD had custody of the thing that caused the plaintiff's injuries or damages; (2) the thing was defective because it had a condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the DOTD had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and did not take corrective measures within a reasonable time; and (4) the defect in the thing was a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's…

    • 569 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John Lowe Case Study

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Plaintiff had a season ticket seat which was in the fourth row. During the pregame warm-ups, there were several punks being used on the ice and there was a crowd around the plaintiff which blocked plaintiff’s eyes to see the ice court. Plaintiff tried to move to find a clear view but she failed. A punk flew off the ice and plaintiff’s mouth and face got hit because she could not see the ice and therefore she was not able to evade. Plaintiff got severe injuries because of the flying punk and brought a suit against the defendant Los Angeles Kings hockey club. The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff then appealed.…

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Shenendehowa Case Study

    • 774 Words
    • 4 Pages

    In this case, the plaintiff, McGrath, states that the defendant, Shenendehowa Central School District, did not maintain a safe playing field and showed negligence when it came to field maintenance. The plaintiff also claimed that before the injury occurred she observed the spots on the field that were repaired and she couldn’t tell them different from regular rough patches of dirt on the field that were covered by grass. So basically she is claiming that she was unaware of the hazardous spots filled with soft, sand-like material and was unaware of the actual risk she was taking because she was only able to observe the surface of the field. She states that when she planted her foot, it “sunk” into the ground and as she continued to perform the move her foot remained stuck in the so-called sinkhole and that is why…

    • 774 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case Brief

    • 1324 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The plaintiffs, Carol and Gary allege that on September 13, 1998, Carol Allen was injured while participating in a recreational softball game, while she was running to first base. She was hit in the head by the shortstop of the opposing team. This game was an adult and slow pitch softball tournament. The teams that were playing in this tournament were part of the Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, (league) and were sponsored by the Amateur Softball Association Inc. (ASA). The games were played on a softball field that was owned by defendant Martel-Roberge American Legion Post #47 (American Legion). The teams were sponsored by defendant Daniel’s Sports Bar and Grill (Daniel’s) and defendant Thompson Imports (Thompson) who also provided t-shirts for the players. Defendant Bollinger Fowler Company (Bollinger) provided liability insurance for the league, ASA, the American Legion, the Daniel’s team and the Thompson team. The plaintiff was playing for the Daniel’s team, and was using a smaller softball made for women to be able to hit more competitively when playing with men, this was an official rule set forth by the ASA. The defendants did not recommend, require, or provide the use of helmets. The ASA official rules are that there be five men and five women for each team, this game consisted of seven men and three women on each team. When Carol Allen was batting for the first time, she hit a ball towards the shortstop. The male player for the Thompson team threw the ball toward first base in order to get the runner Carol Allen out, but instead the ball struck Carol in the head. This caused her cognitive deficiencies including impaired speech.…

    • 1324 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Hsa 515 Law and Health

    • 1411 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The first element that a plaintiff must prove is that the defendant owed him or her legal duty of care. Generally, this duty of care is a legal notion that states that people owe anyone around them or anyone who could be around them a duty to not place them in situations of undue risk of harm. Proving this element will largely depend on the facts of the situation. After the plaintiff has proved that a legal duty of care existed, he or she must then prove that this duty was breached. Generally, courts will use the standard of a ‘reasonable person’ when it comes to this question. Specifically, this means that the judge or jury must view the facts of the situation and decide what a reasonable person would have done in a similar situation. If this reasonable person would have acted differently than the defendant, it’s likely that it will be found that the duty was breached. Causation is the most complicated element of negligence. It means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either directly or indirectly caused the injuries and damages suffered by the plaintiff because of the breach of the duty of care. This element has confused even the most respected legal minds over time, and its proof should not be taken lightly. Last, a plaintiff in a negligence case must prove a legally recognized harm, usually in the form of physical injury to a person or to property. It is not enough that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care. The failure to exercise reasonable care must result in actual damages to a person to whom the defendant owed a duty of care (FindLaw 2012). These damages can be actual costs such as medical expenses and lost income or intangible costs such as pain and suffering or loss of companionship.…

    • 1411 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    you are the judge paper

    • 1134 Words
    • 5 Pages

    My Decision as the Judge. "You be the Judge", who should prevail (win the case) and what legal rules…

    • 1134 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The trial court rendered judgement in favor of plaintiff against both defendants(Duplechin and Duplechin's liability insurer, Allstate Insurance Company). Both Duplechin and Allstate contend that the trial court erred: in not finding that Bourque assumed the risk of injury by participating in the softball game and was guilty of contributory negligence. Duplechin also contends that the trial court erred in negligent. Allstate further contends that the coverage under its policy which excludes injury intended or expected by the insured.…

    • 488 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Ayy lmao

    • 364 Words
    • 2 Pages

    V. What legal precedent did this case set? What was the significance of this decision for the U.S. at the time of the decision?…

    • 364 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    help

    • 427 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The extrapolation that can be clearly drawn from these cases is that is a plaintiff buys a baseball bat, the said bat must be in that condition that was…

    • 427 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Torts Memo

    • 343 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The essential elements of an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in North Carolina are 1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant 2) which is intended to and does in fact cause 3) severe emotional distress. Extreme and outrageous conduct is conduct which exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by decent society. In Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 204 (N.C. 1979), the courts ruled: “Although we find error in the grounds on which the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Count Number II, we nevertheless affirm the dismissal on other grounds. The requirement that plaintiff in a malicious prosecution action based on a prior civil proceeding show some special damage resulting therefrom, as discussed supra, is an essential, substantive element of the claim.” In Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 141 (1986), the court decided: “We hold Pfeiffer's conduct, as shown by Hogan's forecast of evidence, was not such as to be reasonably regarded as "extreme and outrageous" so as to permit Hogan to recover for intentional infliction of mental distress.”…

    • 343 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cheerleading Controversy

    • 453 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The group told her that they were fine and the plaintiff seemed to be upset because the group had not successfully completed the stunt. At no point did the plaintiff tell her that she had been injured, nor did she exhibit any symptoms of a concussion in her presence.…

    • 453 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays