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.”…
Description: Terry Fedrick appeals from a take nothing judgment following a bench trial. In one issue, Fedrick argues that he was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law in light of factual findings made by the trial court. We affirm. * * * Fedrick is a truck driver, and he owns a commercial truck manufactured in 1994. The truck apparently developed a short circuit in the wiring and caught fire while it was parked outside Fedrick's home. Fedrick was able to extinguish the fire, and had the truck towed to Nichols's repair facility. Nichols agreed to attempt to repair the truck. One of his employees began the repair job, but could not complete the repair because a part had not yet arrived. The truck was parked outside Nichols's facility overnight when it caught fire again and was burned beyond…
12) Mr. Anderegg did sell jacobs civic hatch back. Your client knows that it was her sons vehicle. $500 was used for jacobs school books, emergency room visit and computer parts, however it's my sole responsibility to pay for our sons insurance and gas, but I belive your client is paying his phone bill.…
Facts: The appellant, Michael P. Babine brought suit against Gilley’s Bronco Shop, Inc. damages from injuries sustained at Kevin’s West, Inc. a nightclub, where he was thrown off the mechanical bull “El Toro”. The mechanical bull was sold to Kevin’s from Gilley’s. Gilley’s purchased it from another party. The purpose of the mechanical bull was for training rodeo cowboys.…
After defendant checked Taylor’s driving record and contacted his references they had no reason to believe that Taylor would not be a safe driver. Additionally, the defendant specifically instructs its drivers to stay on the interstate and stop only for emergencies to service the truck and to eat and sleep. Drivers were to sleep in the truck’s sleeping compartment at rest areas or truck stops on the interstate. Defendant’s inquiry into Taylor’s driving record, and past employment information constituted reasonable care in making their hiring decision where the job duties involved minimum contact between the employee and other persons. Taylor’s actions involving his attack on plaintiff were outside the scope of his employment. Therefore, the defendant is not liable to the…
Appellant believes the court hindered his ability to provide a defense based on his alibi that he was not present at the scene of the crime when the fire occurred and that he claimed the fire resulted by way of accidentally leaving a hot plate on. The prosecution proved the appellant conspired to ignite the fire later when he was not present. Prosecution also proved that by pouring the accelerant around the hot plate with the power on, is not indicative of an accident. The defense must prove "impossibility of the accused's presence," for which the court found no basis for error in the original trial.…
The court refers to rulings in Granite Constr. Co. v Rhyne, 817 P.2d 711 (Nev. 1991) and Craigo v. Circus-Circus Enterprises, Inc., 785 P.2d 22 (Nev. 1990). In the former case the court held that the “facts show that Granite consciously and deliberately disregarded known safety procedures, safety procedures that they had expressly agreed to…
Answer; Mark Adams should be held responsible for the negligence which has caused minor accidents to some of the residents he should also listen to and acknowledge the need to regulate the safety of equipment installed within acre woods, Sarah has a right to be concerned as part of her job is therapy for the patient’s physical well-being. The legal issues here could present multiple cases of unethical behavior by Mr. Adams part; the ethical issues would be his lack of concern of the well-being of the residents of acre woods which in turn could create multiple lawsuits.…
It is about whether the statute is constitutionally valid under the Dormant Commercial Clause (DCC). The State argues that all trucks must be equipped with certain types of protective devices to promote safety on the roads. The cost of the safety devices is approximately $1195 per truck. The Plaintiff, BBT, alone owns 89 trucks in its fleet. The regulation like this would impose a significant financial burden on the company like BBT as well as would put a hindrance on the trucking industry…
Application/Analysis: Under the negligence per se doctrine, a defendant is responsible if he or she fails to properly maintain and repair damage that results to injuries to someone or a plaintiff (Cheeseman, 2013). Under negligence per se, an injured party or plaintiff is not allowed to prove that the defendant owed him or her duty of care because it is already stipulated in the statute or the law already establishes it. In this case, New York City’s building code established a standard gap required for an escalator step and wall. The escalator gap exceeded the city’s standard of 0.375-inch. The gap in the city’s escalator was 2-inch, which clearly violates the New York City’s building code. It is clear that New York City’s building code was intended to standardize the construction of escalators and other buildings as well as preventing injuries like those sustained by plaintiff Julius Ebanks. Just like any residents of the United States, Julius Ebanks was a resident of New York. Therefore, protection under the city’s building code extended to him. The court ruled in favor of Julius Ebanks under the doctrine of negligence per se because he was meant to be protected under New York City’s building code. He was awarded thousands of dollars for injuries he…
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?…
2. The court rejected the negligent supervision claim because they agreed it was not a viable theory of recovery. They stated that, “Because Landin was neither on Honeywell’s premises nor using Honeywell’s chattels when he shot Nesser” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457), that therefore made the claim not viable.…
4. That the act of negligence by the Defendant Herman A. Schulman as stated herein were the direct and proximate cause of the injuries that Plaintiff Dale M. Roehnig sustained and that under the facts herein set out, the Defendant Herman A. Schulman is liable to the Plaintiff for all injuries and damages.…
1. Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assume the risk of particular accident?…
At approximately 7:50 p.m., bells at the train station rang and red lights flashed, signaling an express train’s approach. David Harris walked onto the tracks, ignoring a yellow line painted on the platform instructing people to stand back. Two men shouted to Harris, warning him to get off the tracks. The train’s engineer saw him too late to stop the train, which was traveling at approximately 66 mph. The train struck and killed Harris as it passed through the station. Harris’s widow sued the railroad, arguing that the railroad’s negligence caused her husband’s death. Evaluate the widow’s argument.…