Rapid Fire- Intentional & Business Torts; Negligence & Strict Liability
Karaslee
rapid_fire.docRapid fire 1
This was a lawsuit that immediately came to mind when reading about this weeks topic:
Summary
In the summer of 2006 Steven Domalewski, a New Jersey teen, was playing pitcher in a Police Athletic League baseball game. The batter hit a line drive that hit Domalewski square in the chest. The impact caused his heart to stop and he needed to be revived via CPR. Paramedics were on-scene within minutes, as they happened to be nearby, and administered oxygen. Unfortunately, the boy had already been without oxygen to the brain for a long enough period to cause brain damage. The boy's family ultimately sued Louisville Slugger, Little League, and The Sports Authority (a sporting goods store) for damages on the basis that metal bats were more dangerous than wood bats because the ball travels off metal bats faster. The suit was settled with the family receiving $14.5 million.
Analysis:
I should preface my analysis by saying that I more or less despise most corporations as they all seem to adhere to the Milton Friedman school of thought of slash and burn. Further, I think capitalism is barbaric and has no place in so called intelligent and civilized society. And when the Bush administration offered corporations protections from lawsuits further than they had before, based in large part on the ire the McDonald's coffee suit raised, I found it very concerning. That said, I found this suit to be completely absurd. As the parent of a child, you enter your kids into athletic pursuits fully knowing the dangers that are present in that sport. If you have not done your research then that reflects on your parenting and the blame falls to you. Further, how can you justify suing Little League when it wasn't even a Little League game, it was a Police League. The assertion that metal bats were less safe than wood was unfounded. Older metal bats had been found to be unsafe, and back in the 90's, over a decade prior to Domalewski's incident, the industry changed the characteristics of the metal bats to be the same as the wooden bats. The injuries caused by metal bats immediately fell to the same level as the wooden bats. So the main claim of the suit, that the metal bats were less safe, was untrue. Despite all this the Domalewski's were given a whopping $14.5 million. None of this can buy the boys brain function back but at least the parents can buy a mansion now. There's something particularly unsettling about parents who, rather than seeing the tragedy that has befallen their child, see the dollar signs flash before their eyes. Unfortunately, cases like this make it harder for cases with legitimate claims, as these types of cases raise the hackles of ordinary people and turn them off to lawsuits as they shine light on the overly litigious society in which we live. A society in which it seems there are prospectors out there just waiting for tragedy to strike their family so they can cry all the way to the bank.
Rapid fire 2
This week i choose to talk about international business tours.
Summaries:
In my opinion, torts means an action that makes people's right get lost. On the other hand, international business torts is an important and serious issue. For example, when people are writing essays, when they need to quote somebody's word, they must label where the quote comes from. If they don't, the author or the person who says that word has right to sue .Also, there is another situation, it is happening when people in business are making hurt or wrong statement about someone. That is called defamation. There are four elements to judge if the situation develops defamation:(1) Statement was made, (2) Falseness of Statement, (3) Communicated to at least one other person, (4) Injury occurred. Additionally, international business tort muast happen between two different categories and it hurts people on purpose.
Research:
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants (Links to an external site.)
This is a new that relates to business torts. One lady has got hurt three-degrees by Hot Coffee from McDonald. Then, Lieback judged that the Hot Coffee is too hot and it is defective. But McDonald refuses this allege. However, it causes business tort from Lieback to McDonald. These companies are different categories and Lieback is claiming on purposes. In my opinion, McDonald is right because this incident happened suddenly and it may has some other factors. Lieback has no right to push all the responsibilities to McDonald . It has suspicions when Lieback judges the result, we can guess that if Lieback wants to make some bad information about McDonald. However, McDonalds should sue Lieback and it was possible for it to win back the reputations.
