McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P. was a personal injury case filed on March 17, 1998, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant club was vicariously liable for their employee’s actions that caused the plaintiff’s injury. The injury in question occurred in Peoria, Illinois during an IHL game on December 15, 1990 between the Peoria Rivermen and the Milwaukee Admirals. While the St. Louis Hockey Club technically wasn’t playing in the game, they can be held liable for the injury, as the Peoria Rivermen are a subsidiary of the club. During the third period of said game, the defendant, Stephen McKichan, a goalie for the Admirals, was both injured and rend unconscious by a body-check from a Peoria player. This body-check occurred after play was stopped due to the hockey puck floating out-of-bounds. Also, the defendant player ‘s body-check had occurred after the referee had blown his whistle twice to signal the play stoppage. After the injury, the defendant’s player received a game misconduct and a suspension. The player would also go on to settle with the plaintiff out …show more content…
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Judge Fahey felt that affidavits provided by Dascoli’s mother and ex- girlfriend in support of Dascoli were weak and insubstantial, as well as not credible given the fact the defendant had the opportunity to advise Kelly of first aggressor evidence failed to do so. Additionally, in reference to an affidavit written by a medical expert, Fahey states that his conclusion was “without sufficient factual basis, and is, at best, conjecture and
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
Stevens (Agreed in part with the judgment): Agreed with the ruling, but did not feel the officers should be held liable for third party occurrences while doing their jobs (Pembaur v. Cincinnati,
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
In the case of Canada v. Bedford, three sex workers in Ontario Canada, Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, challenged the Charter as they stated that the following sections in the Criminal Code violate the rights promised and protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; CC s 210, CC s. 212(1) (j), and CC s. 213(1) (c). These sections “make it an offence to keep or be in a bawdy-house, prohibit living on the avails of prostition, and prohibits communicating in public for the purposes of prostitution,” (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6-3). The women claimed that these restrictions did not, in fact, prevent but implement more danger for anyone in the field of work. The women claimed that these restrictions went against their rights protected under s. 2(b) of the Charter as it disabled them from their right to freedom of expression (Canada v. Bedford, 2013, 6). As the provisions were set to prevent “public nuuisance” and “exploitation of prositutes,” they in fact go against the rights in s. 7 of the Charter. Thus, being under declaration of invalidity. This in fact brings upon question on whether it is the right decision to allow prostitution without any regulation in order to impose that the the Charter is not being violated, or whether to suspend the declaration until a proper method has been developed (while infringing the rights of those in the field of work). Ultimately, all of the laws were struck down by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
It has been said for years that any case of educational malpractice was doomed from the start. Because of this, it was a huge surprise when the Iowa Supreme Court denied the defendant, Cedar Rapids Community School District’s motion for summary judgement. This was a case where a student sued for negligent misrepresentation by a school guidance counselor. One reason why the court may have denied the motion was because it was trying to protect a category of people who were considered especially vulnerable, the student-athlete.
When a collection of people with common ideals and values congregate into a group for the means of political gain, they become a much greater presence than if they remained individuals. Whether through singular interest groups or through national political parties, they acquire the power to influence change in the political system, determined to see their viewpoints prevail. This practice was apparent at the time of McDonald v. Chicago. In the time period before the McDonald v. Chicago ruling, numerous people, either through interest groups or political parties, sought the influence the court’s decision and ensure that their viewpoints towards the matter of firearms predominated in the court of law.
In the Worcester Cold Storage fire the defendants were initially charged with six counts each of involuntary manslaughter. However the Superior Court dismissed the incitements because the court declared that the defendants did not have a duty to act (report the fire) and that their actions did not satisfy the standard of wanton and reckless conduct required for a manslaughter charge. However, in the appeal the commonwealth presented evidence that the defendants did have a duty to act and their behavior at the time of and after the fire shows a pattern of wanton and reckless behavior.
The student sued the school district for carelessly failing to teach and coach him the necessary skills to play field hockey. Because of this, the student argued that the school didn’t protect him from being struck in the face by another student’s stick during the course of a game. A few weeks after the injury, Devon
In the Farmer v. Brennan case, (1994), the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference is a continuum and is "mere negligence and something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm (Ross, 2014). Although deliberate indifference isn't easily defined as one, separately, each word has a meaning. "Deliberate" conveys that a specific action was chosen out of other options and "Indifference" conveying that one has consciously disregarded another's' rights. In the Section 1983 Standard, sherry must provide evidence that the officials failed to protect her. She must show evidence that the officers knew of the risk by placing her in general population and the harm that she was subjected to and their disregard for those risk. I agree with the court's reasoning in developing this standard because I believe that it is vital to have information about situations such as this because accusations can get people in a lot of trouble and can bring forth some serious consequences if the accusations turn out to be false and lives can be affected in a negative way. However, trying to provide evidence that one's rights have been violated can be hard because if the accusations are true, obtaining evidence in some cases can't be shown or there is a lack in
Additionally, although the tests developed in Caldwell were intended to broaden the concept of recklessness to catch those who were morally at fault but without strong enough evidence of their state of mind, it has left a loophole. It was held that people would only fall within the lacuna if they thought about whether there was a risk and, due to a genuine, honest mistake, decided there was none, in such cases they would not be considered reckless. If they thought about whether there was a risk, and decided on the basis of a grossly negligent mistake that there was none, then they would still be reckless for the purposes of Caldwell. The Caldwell lacuna was examined in the case of Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary V Shimmen
Legg differed from the previous law of Amaya v Home Ice, fuel & supply CO. 1963 for the following reasons: The case of Dillion V. Legg does present a mother who claimed emotional distress, but was not within the zone of danger. The sister, however is an acceptance of the previous ruling of Amaya v. Home and was in the zone of danger. The court felt justified to give leeway to right of relief for the sister and not the mother. But the court questioned fair judgement on its own behalf since the mother was only a few yards away from the zone of danger. therefor the concept of the zone danger rule in this case was to be denied by the court and did not rely on authoritative
They concluded that the defendant believed that Andy wasn't a good lawyer but then gave him one of the most impactful lawsuit for one of their most important clients and then said that it was all a test. They then went on to say that it didn't prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt. Their decision was based upon the evidence shown by the plaintiff. The plaintiff proved to them that Wheeler had began to Fail in his duty of care directly after he had found out that Becket had AIDS and was a homosexual. Wheeler had failed to reach his moral minimum in relation to firing Beckett. The prosecution's main claim was that Wheeler had and has been ethically irresponsible in the work environment for employee discrimination. The plaintiff claims that Wheeler hated gays and treated his employees with AIDS with disrespect and disregarded them. Plaintiff supports this claim by calling upon a witness to the stand. This is a woman who used to work for Wheeler and she says something along the lines that, “He treated me normally but once he found out that I have AIDS he would often times avoid me and disrespect me.” The plaintiff also bring up the managing partner of Wheelers Business and he asks the partner if he had known that Beckett had aids before they fired him and he replied with a yes. They pursued justice for Beckett when the court ruled in favor of him and allegedly awarded him $4.5 million for payback, damages for pain and suffering, and punitive