Civil Law: The Law Of Tort

Part 4: Source and Summary • My search on Westlaw led me to 24 Mich. Civ. Jur. Torts § 7.

Cara Knott was a 20-year-old living in California who was enrolled at San Diego State University. On December 27th, 1986, she was driving home from her boyfriend's house. She called her parents to let them know she was on her way home but never got there. The following day, her car was found on a dead-end road. Along with suspicious skid marks (53 between them), insinuating a large vehicle that did not match the car she was driving.

In the movie, A Civil Action, personal injury lawyer, Jan Schlichtman and his law firm, file a law suit against Beatrice Foods and W.R. Grace & Company. The prosecution’s case is based on the premise that these two leather companies contaminated the water supply, in Woburn, Massachusetts. The motion brought before the court requested that the eight plaintiffs be compensated for “negligence, conscious pain and suffering, and wrongful death. ”1 Schlichtman presented medical evidence that illustrated an unusually high incidence of cancer in the small town of Woburn.

In deciding this case, the court also looked at Section 341 of the Restatement of Torts. This section is titled “Activities Dangerous to Licensees,” and it states that people who own land may be held liable for others physical harm only if the person is unable to foresee or realize the danger associated with the action or if they do not know the risk involved with their activities. It

In the movie, A Civil Action, the plaintiff’s case began when a group of various parents and families believed that the health related issues and deaths in their city of Woburn was the result of contaminated water. Although the attorney, Jan Schlichtmann, was reluctant to take the case at first because they didn’t have plausible cause, he realized that 2 corporations sat at the border of the river. Mr. Schlichtmann and his firm thus took the case and file a major lawsuit which stated that the the two corporations, Grace and Beatrice, caused wrongful deaths due to the dumping of hazardous waste. The plaintiff side of this case then begins to collect scientific evidence and witness statements in order to prove that both Grace and Beatrice were

IN THE HEALTH CARE ALTERNATIVE RESOLUTION OFFICE OF FLORIDA NORTHCHASE NORTH PARCEL 45 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, Claimant, -vs- LINDSEY RICHMOND, SPTC 480 Central Region Road Suit B-3 Fort Myers, FL 32666 Defendant Healthcare Provider __________________________________ FACTS 1. The claimant is a resident of the State of Florida and all services were given to her by the Defendant in the State of Florida. 2. The Defendant is a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor that is licensed by the State of Florida and regularly continue engaging in the practice of psychotherapy. Defendant sustains her principle office at 480 Central Region Road, Suite B-3, Fort Myers, Florida 32666.

This paper discusses the review of the Ontario Court of Appeal between Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada. The structure of this paper will begin with the facts of the case which includes both the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Divisional Court decision, and the conflicting issues of the case. The second portion discusses an analytical point of the case which focuses on the limitations clause of the Charter. In this paper, I will be demonstrating that the rights and freedoms in the Charter are not absolute. - Facts of the case Trinity Western University (TWU) is a private university in British Columbia that provides an education based on evangelical Christian principles.

Obscure People of the American Revolution We have all heard of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. These are the most studied, the most documented people of the American Revolution and a few of our country’s Founding Fathers. These are the famous people that everyone refers to when they are either reciting a quote or making a reference to the American Revolution or our Founding Fathers. We all know that these well documented individuals were well educated in the finest schools and that their families had the wealth to accomplish anything they wished.

Teresa's case was submitted to the jury on the counts alleging breach of contract, negligence and wantonness, and the tort of outrage.   The jury returned a verdict against Akins and in favor of both plaintiffs.   The jury assessed compensatory damages at $450,000 and punitive damages at $150,000, for a total of $600,000 in Megan's case; in Teresa's case, the jury assessed compensatory damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $150,000, for a total of $350,000.”

The legal definition of a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another person. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which resulted in harm and are the most heard legal proceedings. Being that torts are various and plenty it must also be stated that a tort can be subjective depending upon the parties involved. Not only can a tort be subjective to the parties involved but also the litigation involved with defining that tort by a court of law is also subject to prejudice by those who may or may not see it as a wrongful act. While tort law may be a valid means of regulation in jurisdictions with established and accessible bodies of common law,

A Civil Action is a movie based on a true story about an epic courtroom showdown where Jan Schlichtmann, a tenacious personal-injury attorney files a lawsuit against two of the nation's largest corporations. He accuses, Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace Company for causing the deaths of children from water contamination by the illegitimate dumping of chemical wastes into natural water sources. The first issue brought up in this movie is concealing or misrepresenting of the truth also known as deceit. Deceit occurs when an individual withholds or misrepresents information by making false statements with the intent of altering another person’s position on a matter. In the movie, Jan does some personal investigations after he notices that there’s

Assignment #2 Question 1: What is the purpose of tort law? What types of damages are available in tort lawsuits? Primarily, the purpose of tort law is to provide relief to injured parties for harms and/or damages caused by the person being sued for tort as well as to impose liability on parties responsible for the harm, which is ultimately aimed to deter others from committing harmful acts, whether intentional or unintentional. In tort law, damages extend not only to physical injury sustained and/or personal safety, but also to another person’s property, dignity, and reputation (emotional pain and suffering) that is recognized by statute or common law (protected interest) as a legitimate basis for liability.

Therefore, mike caused further harm to Julian. For the court to allow David to recover against Julian’s dad, on what tort theory will David’s attorney rely? 
Punitive damages are awarded only for intentional torts, when the court determines that the tortfeasor deserves an additional punishment beyond just compensating the plaintiff for the harm done to him or her. Therefore, David’s attorney will rely on intentional torts to

Here a compensation tribunal was set up to compensate the families of victims who had died in the Stardust tragedy. The grieving father of one victim sought a review of a decision made by the tribunal to award the mother of a victim compensation and the father no compensation. The court refused to quash the decision of the tribunal and, strangely, agreed that there were circumstances which justified awarding of compensation to one parent and not the other. This decision was made by a court which was quite critical of the approach taken by Lord Diplock in GCHQ. Henchy J. said he would be ‘slow to test reasonableness by seeing if it accords with logic’ and would be ‘equally slow’ to accept the moral standard criteria believing it a vague and inconsistent principle to base reasonableness on.

Reynolds v Clarke (1726)2 Ld Raym 1399, Fortescue ruled that the difference would surmount to whether the consequence was immediate or occurred later, for which an action would otherwise not be brought. The rigidness in the distinction between trespass and case proved a problem. The solution lay in allowing the plaintiff to ‘waive’ the trespass and sue instead in case.in Williams v. Holland (1833)2 LJCP (NS) 190, the court of common pleas decided that this would be allowed if the plaintiff’s injury was occasioned by the ‘carelessness and negligence’ of the defendant, regardless of whether or not the act was immediate, so long as the act was unwillful. Thus one could bring an act whether the defendant produced immediate or consequential damage.