Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS M.A. MORTENSON COMPANY‚ INC.‚ Petitioner‚ v. TIMBERLINE SOFTWARE CORPORATION and SOFTWORKS DATA SYSTEMS‚ INC.‚ Respondents. No. 67796--4 SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON 140 Wn.2d 568; 998 P.2d 305; 2000 Wash. LEXIS 287; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P15‚893; 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 357 October 26‚ 1999‚ Oral Argument Date May 4‚ 2000‚ Filed PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Appeal from Superior Court‚ King County. 95--2--31991--2. Honorable Phillip Hubbard‚ Judge. DISPOSITION: Court
Premium United States Appeal Supreme Court of the United States
IRAC Brief Shareholder Class Action Week 6 Amy Ramkey‚ Anita Hicks‚ Charles Cohen‚ Christina Medina LAW531 Business Law June 2‚ 2014 Professor Sonja Dickens IRAC Brief Shareholder Class Action Introduction: Issue: Whether World Acceptance Corp violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and/or misleading statements‚ as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company ’s business‚ operations‚ and prospects. (www.marketwatch.com) Rule: The rule that applies
Premium Corporation Law United States
WEEK 6 IRAC Brief Law/531 November 17‚ 2014 Explanation This paper will explain regulatory compliance requirements for business situations for both domestic and international businesses. It will also evaluate legal risks associated with domestic and international business activity and explain how this can be applied in a business managerial setting. The two cases chosen deal with Facebook and suits that have happened domestically and internationally to show and explain the difference between international
Premium Law European Union United States
Business Law Unit 2: Negligence and Duty of Care Kaplan University 7/13/13 Negligence and Duty of Care Gloria Rodriguez Business Law August 12‚ 2013 Negligence and Duty of Care Scenario: As pedestrians exited at the close of an arts and crafts show‚ Jason Davis‚ an employee of the show’s producer‚ stood near the exit. Suddenly and without warning‚ Davis turned around and collided with Yvonne Esposito‚ an 80-year-old woman. Esposito
Premium
Injury Due to Labor and Delivery Negligence Some things in this world are simple and can be done easily by a single person. But‚ many tasks require a team work and unity. One amongst them is the task of bringing a child into this world. The birth of a baby should be the happiest moment in a parent’s life‚ but events that occur during labor or in the delivery room can quickly turn happiness to sorrow. It becomes the keen responsibility of doctors‚ nurses‚ and other team members involved in bringing
Premium Medicine Health care Pregnancy
resistance to any deliberate tort. In Australia‚ contributory carelessness is accessible when the offended party’s own particular carelessness added to its own injuries.[6] Also allude to Pennington v Norris for second test.[7] Culture "Contributory Negligence"[8] was the title of an around 1982 sonnet by Attila the Stockbroker‚ an execution writer in the UK. The lyric scrutinized a court choice where an attacker got away overwhelming discipline and was requested to pay just a fine on the ground that
Premium Common law Negligence The Gathering
Tort Actions The most prevalent tort in scenario 2 is negligence. The first act of negligence would be the glass that was found in Anna’s food that caused her injury. The second negligent act was the waiter’s decision to carry a flaming dish through the restaurant without announcing his presence. The restaurant owner’s negligent decision to not install an emergency exit other than a revolving door entrance caused an elderly woman to be trampled and caused several other patrons to suffer from
Premium Tort Law Negligence
unreasonable conduct endangers someone to whom they owe a duty of care to. 4. The standard of care in most negligence cases is the degree of care that the law requires in a particular case. In most cases‚ the standard is reasonableness. What an ordinary prudent person would do under the same or similar circumstances. The standard of care is the way in which we measure the breach of duty that leads to negligence liability. 5. Some of the factors that help determine reasonableness are: sight
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Criminal Law – 6 August Reasonableness‚ continued Options for SA law approach to negligence: 1) Purely subjective assessment of negligence supported by JC De Wet; 2) Cultural defences – but these are based on labelling people and assuming all people with the label are the same; 3) Objective test of reasonableness with subjective factors; 4) Incorporating subjective factors into the capacity. Any argument on the basis of capacity have to contend with the Eadie judgment‚ need to see
Free Criminal law Murder Homicide
Analysis Step 1: Ms. Jones’ lawsuit alleging negligence on the part of TWS for failing to maintain a safe entryway to the store needs to meet the four elements required for negligence: (1) a duty of care; (2) a breach of the duty; (3) causation; and (4) injury. Step 2: TWS claims Ms. Jones was comparatively negligent in an attempt to reduce the total damages that Ms. Jones can recoup which is decided upon the degree to which Mr. Jones’ personal negligence contributed to cause the injury inflicted
Premium Tort Law Tort law