Law cases brief
Hwk trader
legal_assignment_7.docxZongzhi Li Tuf45364
Atcovitz V. Gulph Mills Tennis Club
1. Facts:
A man suffered a stroke during playing tennis in a tennis club. The Tennis club’s agents did their best to save him and call the ambulance on time. However, the man still suffered injury. He suit the Tennis Club for not possessing an AED device. He claimed that if the tennis club give the AED properly, his injury could be way less severe.
2. Issue:
Whether the club should be responsible for not having an AED in this case?
3. Answer:
No.
4. Holdings:
The Law is: “The exception of AED Good Samaritan Act apply only to instances where emergency medical services personeel are unavailable. In addition, it does not indicate that the Legislature aimed to dispense with the regulations governing the training and use of AEDs. Simply, the existence of a civil immunity provision for good Samaritans who use an ARD in an emergency situation cannot impose a duty on a business establishment to acquire, maintain, and use such a device on its premises.
Schuenemann V. Dree,z, LLC
1. Facts:
A lady drove her car into a pole and was unfortunately killed after drinking alcohol in the bar. Her husband, or dad, suit the bar for serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person. The jury decided the case with favor to the plaintiff. However, the bar argues that the level of intoxication for driving a vehicle in Philadelphia is 0.08, which is not able to be predicted. Hence, they claim that they were not able to justify if the person was drunk or not.
2. Issue:
Whether the bar should take the responsibility of offering alcohol to intoxicated or not?
3. Answer:
Yes, they are responsible.
4. Holdings:
The Law is: Where those on whom a duty has been imposed not to serve visibly intoxicated patrons, breach that duty, those persons may be responsible where their actions are found to be a substantial factor in causing an injury. The description of the decedent were consistent with the behavior exhibited by a person who is visibly intoxicated.
Zumbusch V. Wal-Mart Stories, Inc.
1. Facts:
An employee of a company went to do audit check in Wal-Mart. However, she felt down because of the puddles on the ground. Wal-Mart claimed that they did not breach its duty of care to her for two reasons: I. The lady was an licensee, not an invitee and 2. There are no specific evidence saying that Wal-Mart has breached its duty.
2. Issue:
Whether the lady was an invitee or an licensee and should Wal-Mart be responsible for her fall?
3. Answer:
Yes.
4. Holding:
The Law is: The totality of the circumstances here- the frequency and regularity of plaintiff ‘s business related visits over an extended period of time gave rise to an implied invitation. Moreover, a plaintiff who slips and falls on a foreign substance must prove:1 that the substance was placed there by the occupant, or 2 that the occupant knew that the substance was there and failed to use reasonable to remove it or 3 that the substance had been there for so long that the occupant should, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered and removed it. Since, the puddle was dried up already, which indicates the 3. Rule.
Pellman V. McDonald’s Corporation
1. Facts:
Plaintiff suit McDonald for providing unhealthy food to adult and child and caused an incredibly amount of children to become obese. McDonald argues that the plaintiff has to prove that the McDonald was the only cause of Children’s obese.
2. Issue:
Whether can the plaintiff prove that McDonald is the major cause of children’s obsess?
3. Answer:
No.
4. Holdings:
The Law is: The complaint must address these other variables and, if possible, eliminate them or show that a McDiet is a substantial factor despite these other variables.
Mitchell Telega V. Security Bureau, INC.
1. Facts:
A man went to see a football game. At the end of the game, he saw a ball coming toward him. He stood up and has his arm up and fielded the football. However, aggressive fans sitting close to him attacked him which caused several injuries. Hence, the plaintiff suit the football club for not regulating the field well.
2. Issue:
Whether a spectator will be held to assume as inherent in the game the risk of being attacked by displaced fans if he catches a soaring football?
3. Answer:
Yes.
4. Holdings:
The Law is: These cases involve risks that are inherent in the activity itself and are specific to the activity at any appropriate venue. They are, therefore, as a matter of law, risks assumed by the spectators and participants who patronize the amusement facilities.
Garcia V. Grepling
1. Facts:
A student was attacked by another two and was injured. He filed the suit against the students who have attacked him. Moreover, he suited the father of one of the two students who have attacked him because he believed that the father should be liable for his son’s dangerous actions after two previous incidence has occurred.
2. Issue:
Whether should the father be hold liable for his son’s violence behavior?
3. Answer:
No.
4. Holdings:
The Law is: When liability exists, it is based on a principle-agent or a master-servant relationship where the negligence of the child is imputed to the parent, or it is based on the negligence of the parent in some factual situation such as allowing the child to have unsupervised control of a dangerous instrumentality.
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. V. Hagan
I. Facts:
A man and his friend drank a can of coke. However, they later found something in the Coke, seems like a used condom. They suit the Coca-Cola corporation because they are afraid of getting AIDS. Because of their fear to the aids, they claimed that they have been suffered mentally and had a reputation loss to their business.
II. Issue:
Whether should Coca-Cola been responsible for their mental problem because of the “condom” in the Coke?
III. Answer:
No.
IV. Holdings:
The Law is: Without such showings or proofs, a plaintiff’s fear of contracting AIDS is unreasonable as a matter of law and not a legally compensable injury.
Margaret Andrews V. Richard Peters
I. Facts:
A man tapped the back of a lady’s knee for fun. However, the women fell and unexpectedly get injured. They women suit the man for intentionally assaulting and causing the injury. However, the man said that his action was just for joke, he did not mean to hurt her.
II. Issue:
Whether the man is responsible for the women’s accident even though he did not hurt the women purposely?
III. Answer:
Yes.
IV. Holding:
The Law is: The intent with which tort liability is concerned is not necessarily a hostile intent, or a desire to do any harm. Rather it is an intent to bring about a result which will invade the interests of another in a way that the law forbids.
Laura Vetter V. Chad Morgan.
I. Facts:
A lady was driving on the road and stop at a red light. A crazy man and his crazy friend drive beside the girl and was acting weirdly. The man threated the lady and said would remove her out her van. When the green light was on, the man drove the car to the lady’s van sharply, causing the lady’s van driven off the road and her injury. However, the crazy man claimed that his action was only for amusement. Hence, the lady filed a suit against him.
II. Issue:
Should the man be responsible for the lady’s injury even if he claimed that his action was only for fun?
III. Answer:
Yes.
IV. Holding:
The Law Is: Assault is defined as an intentional threat or attempt, coupled with apparent ability, to do bodily harm to another, resulting in immediate apprehension of bodily harm. No bodily contact is necessary. There was evidence of a threat in this case.
Jeffries- Baxter V. Incognito
I. Facts:
The plaintiff signed the lease with someone in order to buy a house. When he signed the lease, the lease agreement including the term that Buyer has inspected the property before signing this Agreement. However, the inspection did not include the mold. Later, the plaintiff started getting sick because of the mold and the leaking water. He moved out the house and filed suit against the seller for fraud advertising.
II. Issue:
Whether can the man get refund with this fraud advertisement even he has signed the agreement with the seller?
III. Answer:
Yes.
IV. Holding:
The Law is: To state a claim for fraudulent inducement, a party must allege A representation which is material to the transaction, made falsely with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false, with the intent of misleading other into relying on it, justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation and the resulting injury was proximately caused by the reliance.
Virginia Brumley V. Pfizer, INC.
I. Facts:
An old man took a pill and had sex with his wife. However, he died. His estate filed a suit against the company who made the pill for Strict products liability and negligence. However, the company claimed that there are no proof of the death is caused by the pill directly and they had a reasonable warning on the cover of the medicine.
II. Issue:
Whether the company is responsible for the men’s death?
III. Answer:
No.
IV. Holding:
The Law is: It is reasonable for the manufacturer to rely on the health care provider to pass on its warnings, because the provider understands the propensities and dangers involved in the use of a given drug, as the prescriber, he stands between the drug and the consumer. Nevertheless, the warning to the physician must still be adequate, and if “the warning to the intermediary is inadequate or misleading, the manufacturer remains liable for injuries sustained by the ultimate user.
Key Terms:
Assault: make a physical attack on.
Breach of Duty: occurs when one person or company has a duty of care toward another person or company, but fails to live up to that standard. A person may be liable for negligence in a personal injury case if his breach of duty caused another person's injuries.
Business Tort: orts that provide the common law rules on liability which arise out of business transactions such as interference with economic or business relationships and are likely to involve pure economic loss.
Comparative Negligence: a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury.
Contributory Negligence: failure of an injured plaintiff to act prudently, considered to be a contributory factor in the injury suffered, and sometimes reducing the amount recovered from the defendant.
Defamation: the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.
Defamatory: damaging the good reputation of someone; slanderous or libelous.
Duty of Care: a legal obligation, which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence.
Engagement Letter: defines the legal relationship (or engagement) between a professional and its client(s).
False Imprisonment: the unlawful restraint of a person against her will by someone without legal authority or justification.
Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Intentional Tort: a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor.
Licensee: the holder of a license.
Tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability.
