Case Scenario: A client with a wife and five children has been the sole provider by working for a company for twenty-six years and gets laid off. Regrettably‚ he is having difficulty finding new employment because he appears predominately overqualified‚ therefore employers continually turn him away. Consequently‚ due to the loss of his job; the client worries about meeting the physiological and safety needs of his family. Since he is the sole provider and unable to find work the family may lose all
Premium Family Mother Marriage
The given scenario provides a challenging process by which a traditional EMS system is no longer as applicable as it would be in other situations. The radiation attack response system in which government officials must utilize within this scenario must be flexible and adaptable as various challenges were presented. These challenges included dealing with hospital preparedness and radiation isolation‚ the communication issues which were present throughout the incident‚ the limited availability of
Premium Management Emergency management Hazard
Please find on Lexis and read the following case: Watson v. Dixon‚ 130 N.C. App. 47 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998). Then‚ please answer‚ in one to two paragraphs each‚ each of the following questions: 1) 1) What were the essential facts of that case? 2) 2) What are the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress under North Carolina law? 3) 3) How were the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress applied to that case? In other words‚ explain why the court concluded
Premium Tort Tort law
Tort Law and Cases: A Comparison of Two Cases and Their Potential Frivolity8/22/2010 | Introduction “A tort is a civil wrong resulting in injury to a person or property”; that is brought before a court to compensate the injured party (Bagley & Savage‚ 2010‚ pg 251). In order to prove an intentional tort‚ the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation 4) Injury or Harm. The following tort cases‚ Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck
Premium Tort Tort law
• The peace officer was wearing a distinctive uniform Dossey himself admitted after viewing the Watch Guard Video during our interview that both the lights nor siren were on during the incident and the above was criteria was not met. Dosseys’ statement that he cannot hear the sirens of a police car during a pursuit due to the high level of stress he experiences‚ make his decision not to review MVS footage to ensure the criteria of the vehicle code is met irresponsible and negligent on his part
Premium Police Law Crime
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562‚ • Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said: "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law‚ you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question‚ Who is my neighbour? … You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which
Premium Duty of care Tort Reasonable person
Case Scenario #1 PE 295a Please type your response in paper format‚ double spaced. Paper should include questions and detailed answers and should be 6-8 pages in length. Citing is not necessary as it will be assumed that all of the information obtained will be from the NSCA Essentials of Personal Training text. Papers will be due April 19th and will be 20% of your grade. You have just been contacted via telephone by Jane Doe‚ a 40 year old female who would like to meet with you to discuss the
Premium Obesity Weight training Goal
Scenario 1: I had a new client come in‚ we followed the same rules and procedures as usual. She filled out the medical intake form‚ which I reviewed once it was given to me. The medical intake form‚ had listed some potential contraindications. Such as diabetes and high blood pressure. I went to go to introduce myself and took her to the therapy room. Once we were in a private room‚ I told her that those conditions could possibly prevent her from having the therapy performed. I started to ask
Premium Patient Nursing Health care
ERM and Product Liability Tort LAW 531/Business Law ERM and Product Liability Tort The product liability video scenario presents a dispute between Quick Takes Video and Non-Linear Pro. Non-Linear Pro leased a video editing system to Quick Takes Video. It is the opinion of Quick Takes Video that the editing system is not performing as promised. Since it appears that Non-Linear Pro has misrepresented the quality of the product‚ Quick Takes Video can bring a lawsuit to Non-Linear Pro for breach
Premium Law Economics Marketing
Issues Identified: 1. Whether William has an action in common negligence against Edmund. 2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund 3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS 4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS Pleadings: 1. William v Edmund A. Duty of care Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence