SEPTEMBER 2012 SUBMITTED BY: - ANUP SINGH RAIMAJHI (WMT2060) Question 1 A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in collision with another tram‚ which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with system known as ‘dead man’s handle’‚ a system in use on Sydney’s trains. This would have stopped the tram and avoided the accident. The device had
Premium Tort law Tort
v. Johnson & Wales Univ.‚ 509 F.3d 25 (U.S. App‚ 2007) Background In September 2004‚ plaintiff Christopher Havlik‚ a student at Johnson & Wales University (Providence‚
Premium Law University Tort
8/4/2009/TM/CR/Del. CS (OS) No.1686/2003 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH JUDGMENT 1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for Permanent Injunction‚ infringement of Trademarks‚ Copyright and passing off and damages etc. against the Defendants. 2. When the suit was instituted‚ Plaintiff no. 1 was Fritolay India which now stands merged with Plaintiff no. 2 Company. During the pendency of the present suit‚ the mark LAY’S along with the Sun Banner Device as also the Sun Banner Device
Premium Trademark
The harm to the plaintiffs in consequence of the theft is thus also foreseeable. A special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is sufficiently proximate. The police have to preserve the confidentiality of the information provided by the plaintiff. Failing to do so‚ it was likely to expose the plaintiff to a special risk of damage from others such as Henry; And the risk is greater than the general risk
Premium Law Negligence Tort
Page 1 Case Name: Saelman v. Hill Between Jacques Saelman and William Wuerch‚ plaintiffs‚ and Dennis Wayne Hill and Sylvia Ann Hill‚ defendants [2004] O.J. No. 2122 [2004] O.T.C. 440 20 R.P.R. (4th) 118 2004 CanLII 9176 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 367 Court File No. 13526/00 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Kingston‚ Ontario Hackland J. Heard: April 5-8 and 13-16‚ 2004. Judgment: May 20‚ 2004. (47 paras.) Damages -- For torts -- Affecting property -- Real property -- Nuisance -- Inconvenience -Psychological
Premium Tort Law Pleading
Plaintiff’s Reliance on the Alleged Misrepresentation Was Not Justifiable Because the Alleged Contract Induced Thereby Would Have Been Void for Lack of Consideration from Plaintiff. ........................................................18 3.6. The Third Cause of Action for Fraud and Deceit (Fraudulent Concealment) Is Uncertain‚ Ambiguous and Unintelligible because FAC ¶ 46 Is Rambling and Incomprehensible. ..............
Premium Law Civil procedure Appeal
Cadila Healthcare Limited Vs. Dabur India Limited(2008 (38) PTC 617. (Del.)(DB)) Course-LL.M Subject-Trademark Background (brief facts) The plaintiff in the present case is the owner of Cathilda Healthcare ltd‚and is known in the trading market to be the owner of the mark “SUGAR FREE”.Many of his goods are seen to have the mark which are named as "SUGAR FREE NATURA"‚ "SUGAR FREE GOLD" and "SUGAR FREE D’LITE"."SUGAR FREE" was actually coined and accepted
Premium Trademark Sweeteners
Rester v. Stephens Media‚ LLC In Rester‚ the Plaintiff alleged her supervisor’s aggressive behavior created a hostile workplace‚ but the Court disagreed and determined the single incident of conduct was not severe. The Plaintiff worked as a graphic designer for the Defendant. The Plaintiff and her supervisor got into a confrontation over a work assignment‚ when the supervisor started cursing at her and slamming his hands on the desk. She tried to leave‚ and the supervisor placed his hands on
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Employment
16.02 DEFAMATION — ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION PER SE WHERE PLAINTIFF IS PUBLIC FIGURE OR STATEMENT RELATES TO ISSUE OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR CONCERN In this case‚ the plaintiff claims that the defendant harmed the plaintiff’s reputation by making a false statement about the plaintiff. To establish this claim‚ the plaintiff must prove five elements. The plaintiff must prove that each of the following four elements is more likely true than not true: (1) the defendant made the following statement: [insert
Premium Tort
of the case The court case Harrison v. Benchmark Electronics Huntsville involves a dispute concerning the employment of John Harrison (plaintiff) at a company called Benchmark Electronics Huntsville Inc (BEHI). Aerotek is a company that helps with placing temporary workers at BEHI and they assigned the plaintiff to work at the company as a Debug Tech. The plaintiff suffers from epilepsy‚ but he takes barbiturates to help keep his condition under control and it was determined by the Equal Employment
Premium Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Employment Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990