Hot coffee spill worth cool award McDonald ’s may fork over $2.9 million Denver Post Copyright 1994 Friday‚ August 19‚ 1994 The Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE - A woman‚ who was scalded when her McDonald ’s coffee spilled won a jury award of $2.9 million - or about two days ’ coffee sales for the fast-food chain. Lawyers for Stella Liebeck‚ 81‚ who suffered thirddegree burns in the 1992 incident‚ contended that McDonald ’s coffee was too hot. A state district court jury imposed $2.7 million in
Premium Coffee Damages Burn
Background A Civil Action entails a major class action suit brought forth by several families against major conglomerates (including W.R. Grace chemical company and Beatrice Foods) that were alleged to have negligently damaged the environment of a small town to the extent that its practices led to the spread of leukemia. Jan‚ a personal injury attorney‚ decides to represent a woman that claims that her child and other neighbors of a small town in Massachusetts have been diagnosed with leukemia.
Premium Tort law Negligence Tort
Critical Thinking in the Legal Environment: Torts and Products Liability University of Maryland University College Introduction Through the use of the precepts of product and service liability law‚ consumers can go to court to be compensated for the injuries and/or losses they experienced when using a particular product or service. Product liability cases are a significant portion of United States litigations; there are approximately one million cases a year (Kubasek‚ Brennan
Premium Law Tort Negligence
1. Which torts protect against the intentional interference with persons? The torts that protect against the intentional interference are the following: Assault which is an intentional‚ unexcused act that creates in another person a reasonable apprehension or fear of im-mediate harmful or offensive contact. Battery‚ that is an unexcused‚ harmful‚ or offensive physical contact intention¬ally performed. False imprisonment is the intentional confinement or restraint of another person without justifi¬cation
Premium Tort Tort law Law
Recognizing and Minimizing Tort and Regulatory Risk Plan Karla Ann Lewis Individual Assignment Professor James Eisneman University of Phoenix December 14‚ 2010 Recognizing and Minimizing Tort and Regulatory Risk Plan This regulatory risk plan will recognize the most common torts and risks that are associated business regulation simulation that the learning teams of this course studied. This risk plan will also include how regulatory risks will be identified and analyzed through preventive
Premium Tort Tort law Strict liability
Defamation Feldman (2002): two major rationales to justify freedom of expression * Mill’s instrumental value of freedom of expression on rule-utilitarian analysis: it is best not to censor (unless harmful) anything for risk of censoring truths. * Democratic rationale suggests freedom of expression allows crucial political discourse‚ but this is less convincing in a representative system where expression is only heard at elections Lord Nicholls in Reynolds v Times Newspapers (2001) –
Premium Tort
the importance of product liability and how the product liability laws evolved from tort laws. The main issues which will be discussed in this paper are as follows: • The different aspects of product liability based on tort laws‚ • The effects of product liability cases on companies • Analyze three international business product liability cases • Provide some advices for Canadian exporters in terms of tort law for product liability. Discussion Undoubtedly‚ product liability is one of the
Free Product liability Tort
basically has two parts. In the first part of my essay I will try to shed some light on circumstances where an employer can be held liable for the torts of his/her employees. And after that I will focus on some of the reasons why one person is held liable in certain situations for the torts committed by another person. And then I will finally finish the essay with a conclusion at the end. Vicarious liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another‚ even though that person did not
Premium Employment Tort law Strict liability
Law of Torts Assignment draft This paper shall examine the current position of the Rescuer under Irish law‚ and critically examine how this position has developed under common law and statutes. This development can draw many of its origins from the 2009 Law Reform Commission consultation paper which essentially outlined a framework for the drafting of legislation. Furthermore analysing case law and statue from our jurisdiction and abroad‚ which was applied in the only real substantive case in
Premium Tort Common law Law
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA‚ 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Facts: In 1963‚ Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Arizona police took him to the police station and interrogated him for two hours. After the interrogation‚ Mr. Miranda had confessed to the crimes‚ and provided officers with a written confession. Language at the top of the written confession stated that the confession was given freely and voluntarily without any threats or promises. In addition‚ the language stated that Mr. Miranda
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court of the United States