Key Facts: (Who are the parties? What are they fighting about? Who is suing whom for what?) Susan Kirkpatrick, Appellant; John Zitz and Transamerica Insurance Company, Appelles; Kirkpatrick originally filed a complaint in trial court for a skunk bite she received while in a pet store owned by John Zitz. The trial court dismissed the complaint. Susan Kirkpatrick then appealed the decision, suing the insurance company of John Zitz, Transamerica Insurance Company, for intentional infliction of emotional distress by telling Zitz to not tell Kirkpatrick that the skunk she was bitten by, had been lost. Procedural History: (How did this case get to this court? What occurred before in the court below, if any?) John Zitz, owner of the pet store, was sued in trial court for injuries sustained by …show more content…
Rule: (What rule, statute, precedent, definition or standard did the court use to resolve the dispute?) Precedent: Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sheehan, 373 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979): In the mentioned case, the court concluded that there is no bar to such an action when the conduct is so outrageous and extreme that it goes beyond the bounds of decency; Lay v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 379 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980): In Lay v. Roux Laboratories, the court concluded that if ones conduct is outrageous and extreme in that it evidences a disregard for human life, then it is reasonable to say that there is a high probability that severe emotional distress will follow. Holding: (What rule, definition or standard did the court use to resolve the dispute?) Kirkpatricks ' complaint against Transamerica Insurance Company adequately states a cause of action, in which the court reversed the lower courts decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the appellate courts
This case was televised on the Judge Judy show. I know some might say it’s not a real case but yes, it’s real. This case was very shocking to me due to circumstances of which whom was suing who. In this case the plaintiff is suing the defendant for her son’s medical bills along with the damages to her car.
The result of the case provides how unethical the defense team was towards Mr. Maxell with wanting criminal charges after knowing Mr. Maxwell was not being paid at all for his services. The Bay State Paper Company should have compensated Mr. Maxwell based on the injury location at their
This case was tried by jury, they found for the plaintiff and awarded $10 million in damages. Taser filed posttrial motions
In the Supreme Court case named Carroll v. Carman, the two police officers Carroll and Roberts were investigating a report that an armed man named Zita had stolen a car and went to hide in the house of Andrew and Karen Carman. When they arrived at the house, they found there was no parking and went down a sidestreet that led to a gravel parking area. They parked in the first spots at the rear of the house. They approached the house and saw a sliding glass door that opened onto a deck. They knocked on the door and Andrew Carman came out and refused to answer their questions about Zita.
Casino Sued for Wrongful Death of Elderly Patron The glib phrase “don’t let the door hit you on the way out” took on a tragic meaning at Harrah’s Casino in downtown Joliet, Illinois. 87-year-old Elaine Catuara was critically injured when a malfunctioning door at the casino struck her as she was leaving, resulting in extensive injuries to her hip, and at least two vertebrae located in her lower back. The force of the door was so strong that witnesses described Ms. Catuara as being “violently catapulted to the floor.” After being hospitalized for nearly three weeks, Ms. Catuara passed away after she had initially filed a negligence lawsuit against the casino.
The court concluded since he was not harboring the animal he is not an owner at the time of the injury. Id. at 1267. Similarly in Severson, the court held that under the Animal Control
Henderson, acted with another to injure the Plaintiff, in attempt to steal his property. This case differs from ours in a few ways, the first being that the Defendant was acting alone in our case, in contrast to the Defendant working with another individual. People v. Henderson, 708 N.E.2d 165 (N.Y. 1999). The Defendant was had also attacked the Plaintiff not out of anger, but rather it was a “spearhead of a concerted physical attack aimed at forcefully taking the victim’s property”.
This case was entitled Randall V. Shelton. The plaintiff claimed that she was in her yard one day working when a dual wheeled pickup truck passed on the road. When passing, the pickup flung a rock out of its tire and struck the plaintiff in the leg. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff cannot prove the truck which threw the rock was indeed his, for there was no video evidence of the incident. The plaintiff proved the rock was what indeed struck her and that it was thrown in the direction of her from the road.
Complainants filed lawsuits nationwide with varying claims of injustice. As a result, the rejection of these lawsuits were abundant by lower courts. However, the appeals court process was successful for some of these complainants on varying reasonings, consistency was not prevalent in the beginning. Conlon references in his article that the complaints range from violation of due process, rebuttal presumption, confrontation, the right against self-incrimination, and ordinances conflicting with state law, tickets issued for non-moving violation when clearly the vehicle was in motion in the intersection which resulted in the inability to fight the ticket (197-229). Due process along with rebuttal presumption appears to be the most egregious complaints, in which penalties imposed on the owners of the vehicles, even if they were not the driver of the vehicle.
Saranna Morley November 29, 2015 PAD4723 Journal Article Critique The article “Race and Gender and Bias in Three Administrative Context: Impact on Work Assignments in State Supreme Courts”, by Christensen, Szmer, and Stritch seeks to address if certain types of administration processes better inhibit race and gender prejudices that may surface in the workplace. The authors compared the effects of three distinct administrative settings on race, gender, and other biases in the workload assignments of state Supreme Court justices—important public policy making settings that have been understudied in public administration.
Comparing my annoyance over a burnt tongue to third-degree burns covering my groin and lap area doesn’t compute. This thought upset me a great deal, in that I judged Stella before knowing the facts. The public opinion still seems to be, “if someone can sue over hot coffee and win, well by god I can do this (insert minor action here) and sue (insert corporation or person here) and win big”. Despite the availability of the case facts, “urban legend” has been formed creating a false idea of what
Introduction The Clarkson v. Orkin Exterminating Co. Inc. case took place in the year 1985. Mrs. Clarkson sued Orkin Exterminating Co. Inc. for three distinct charges. Orkin had a contract with both the previous owner of which Mrs. Clarkson inherited after purchasing the house. The agreement stated that Orkin Exterminating Company was to be paid a certain amount of money to handle exterminating practices in this case; spraying of termites.
At the annual retreat for the Major League for the Major League Baseball umpires, a Wilson representative gave the plaintiff an umpire’s mask with what he claimed that the mask was a new, safer design. Some months later, the plaintiff wore the mask while he worked behind the home plate during a game in Washington D.C. Towards the end of the game, he was struck in the mask with a foul ball. The impact of the ball gave him a concussion, and damaged a joint between the bones in his inner ear.
The case arises from an accident which occurred on September 26, 2009 after Timothy Lesko attended a Gun Bash. Michael Trail claimed serious injuries from the accident. Timothy Lesko claimed that he was not the driver and does not know who was driving while the accident occurred. Procedural History
On Monday, April 24, 2017, the investigator traveled to conduct a claim investigation with the insured, Grape Valley Inc., massage parlor at 2760 Tapo Canyon Ridge #7, Semi Valley, CA 93063-2310. Recorded statements were provided by owner Ms. Nian Jia, and Message Technicians, Yijia Wu AKA Mandy, Mr. Yong Chang Yan and Mr. Huange Deng, AKA: Mike. Witnesses conveyed Mr. Cliff Bakelman was a regular once a week customer who has been coming to the foot massage parlor (Grape Valley, Inc.) for three years, where he would get a head to foot massage from Ms. Yijia Wu (Mandy). Ms. Wu conducted a head to toe body massage on Mr. Bakelman that would take about one hour.