PEOPLE’S CAR INC.‚ vs. Commando Security L-36840 May 22‚ 1973 Facts: Plaintiff‚ a car dealer‚ entered into a contract with defendant‚ a security agency‚ and its duty is to guard the former’s premises from theft‚ robbery‚ vandalism and other unlawful acts. On a certain night‚ the security guard deployed by the defendant‚ without authority neither from the plaintiff nor from defendant‚ drove a car‚ which was entrusted to the plaintiff by a customer for service and maintenance‚ outside of the plaintiff’s
Premium Law Tort Security guard
circumstances of the case. The damage could be caused by a negligent act or omission; meaning that the defendant did something or the defendant failed to do what he should have. Elements of negligence To succeed in an action for negligence‚ the plaintiff must prove ALL the followings: The defendant owed him a duty of care Test for Duty of Care (Spandeck v DSTA) Preliminary requirement – Factual Foreseeability (requirement of reasonable foreseeability from a factual perspective) Factual foreseeability
Premium Tort law Contract Tort
FIRST CASE : Gray v Thames Trains Ltd and Another. This case is an appeal case. The plaintiff claim for compensation that he lost as a result of the PTSD. The claimant suffering ’Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ’ ("PTSD") following stress train crash. Effect of it‚ the claimant fatally stabbing a man. He pleading guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Claimant commencing proceedings in negligence against first and second defendant‚ as operator of the train and as entity
Premium Tort Complaint
of events leading up to each trial. Both cases resulted in significant economic compensation to the plaintiff for damages of negligent infliction of emotional distress. After a description of each case‚ an analysis of the legal and ethical issues will be presented. This analysis will compare and contrast the view in three sections‚ entitled “the good‚ the bad‚ and the ugly” the patient (or plaintiff)‚ doctor (or defendant)‚ and lawyers. While the “good” and “bad” are clear‚ the “ugly” will specifically
Premium Medical malpractice
Justice/Referee _________________________________________________X Plaintiff‚ Index No.: -against-
Premium Child custody Health insurance Family law
CASE * Time –so if the act of the defendant causes immediate injury to the plaintiff then the act is trespass however if some one throws a log and another person trips –on that log than it is classified as consequential and it is “case”. (Scott v Sheperd) – the log case. * Judges ruled in Hutchins that it wasn’t trespass because the defendant’s act was consequential and not direct. It was argued by the plaintiff for action on the case under negligence and nuisance but failed. ELEMENTS FOR
Premium Tort Tort law
Patricia Pitts v. Wild Adventures‚ Inc. In this case‚ a plaintiff is Patricia Pitts who is an African-American female. And the defendant is Wild Adventures‚ Inc. that operates a theme park in Valdosta‚ Georgia. The plaintiff claims race discrimination and unlawful retaliation Under Title VII and U.S. Code Section 1981 based on the defendant’s grooming policy prohibiting dreadlock and cornrow hairstyles‚ the defendant’s failure to promote plaintiff to Guest Services Manager‚ and defendant’s decision to
Premium Discrimination Race Racism
Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. Zippittelli v. J.C. Penney Company‚ Inc. The plaintiff‚ who is 63 years old‚ brought this employment discrimination suit against her employer‚ J.C. Penney‚ after the company failed to promote her to the position of shift operations manager at the company ’s Moosic‚ Pennsylvania Customer Service Center. She alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She brought these claims against both
Premium Discrimination Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Employment
Court Docket No.23-400 Probate and Family Court Department Complaint for Divorce Patty Bean‚ Plaintiff v. David Bean‚ Defendant 1. Plaintiff‚ who resides at 123 West Golf Road‚ Middlesex County‚ Boston‚ MA‚ 12345 was lawfully married to the defendant who now resides at 456 East Lark Street‚ Suffolk County‚ Boston‚ MA 12345. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant served in the Military. [Massachusetts General Laws Annotated; Chapter 208‚ Sections 4‚ 5‚ and 6]
Premium Massachusetts Rhode Island Family law
Weichoreak Kang-Kem‚ plaintiff‚ and Marilyn Jean Paine‚ defendant‚ was carried on in common and whether the partnership exists. Judge Barrett J compared the evidence coming out of this case to s.1(1) of the Partnership Act 1892 that defines partnership as the relation which exists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit and also compares to s.2 of the Act that determines the rules for the existence of partnership. Barrett J found that it was the plaintiff who wished to open
Premium