What is the purpose of a class action lawsuit?
A class action lawsuit refers to a court case filed by a single person on behalf of a group of people or rather charges filed by a group of persons against one person who could be a corporate or private entity. A lecture action lawsuit allows a large number of aggrieved parties with a common interest in an affair to sue or be sued as a group (Benton, 2005). The purpose of a class action lawsuit is to give the ordinary man the ability to challenge large companies or private entities that can afford the best legal services and seek redress aimed at any wrong done to them by the private entities.
What are the requirements to have a class certified?
Requirements to have a class certified are defined by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The projected class must meet the general standards for class certification. The judge must define the scope and characteristics of this class thus certifying the plaintiff as a class. The plaintiffs must share a common grievance while the defendants are required by law to share akin defense for all the plaintiffs. The potential plaintiffs must be notified of the class action by various avenues such as mail, telephone calls or television advertisement depending on the capacity of the proposed class. A judge must select a well-experienced representative council for the petitioner and make arrangements with the plaintiff’s representative council for the allotment of damages. The judge should also give the plaintiffs an option to ‘opt out’ of the proposed class action before the proposed class is certified (Benton, 2005).
Do you think that Wal-Mart will face many individual sex discrimination lawsuits now that the class has been decerti...
... middle of paper ...
...irstly, determine whether the plaintiff was close to the scene of the incident. Secondly, whether the shock was due to simultaneous observance of the incident. Thirdly, whether the plaintiff and the victim had a close relationship (Kelly, Holmes, & Hayward, 2005).
Both defendants, Jaffees and Atlantic, are both liable. The emotional distress damages caused to the plaintiff are compensable using the factors stated above. The plaintiff was right on the scene of the accident (Benton, 2005). In addition, she watched her boy helplessly suffer up to his departure. Moreover, the plaintiff was the mother of the victim. The plaintiff suffered emotional distress that deserves compensation from the defendants.
References
Kelly, D., Holmes, A. E. M., & Hayward, R. (2005). Business law. London: Cavendish.
Benton, B. (2005). Business Law. Burlington: Elsevier.
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
The Tucker vs. Walgreen Company was a nationwide known class action case. It fell into the category of race discrimination. This cases was brought to the attention of the law by African Americans who were employed at this retail and pharmacy store. This pledged that they were being discriminated to by the following acts:failure to move up in positions (promotion), dieing them the opportunity to apply for assistant manager and manager, and being assigned to an undesirable store for an extended period of time compared to whites. They filed a class action lawsuit with the demand of compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Along with these demands, the plaintiffs desired class certification for those who have been previously affected by the defendant’s discriminatory acts as well as any who will suffer from them in the future.
This language made is favorable for the jury to consider Dr. Ricketson’s negligence as not foreseeable. The rule for the NIED claim relates to “the alleged actual injury is for psychological distress alone,” and NIED claim achieves compensation for “persons who have sustained emotional injuries attributable to the wrongful conduct of others.” (Iturralde, 2013) Which would apply to Rosalinda because she was Aurturo’s caregiver.
Note and answer to yourself, the factor that are involved at the incident, the mechanisms and circumstances on the injury, as well as the extent and type of injury. Assessing the situation identify what happened, a number of people involved, as their age, there is a child and or elderly.
Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
It is likely Ms. Saxon has a cause of action for sexual harassment. The sex-based remarks directed at her, as well as her employer’s failure to rectify the situation after Ms. Saxon approached the foreman, probably constitute unlawful employment practices.
Unfortunately, the class-action lawsuit had to happen to open the eyes of the company to re-evaluate itself. First, the involvement of the Chief Diversity Officer was needed to create a game plan to encompass every corner of the organization. It began with the Board of Directors and executive management and similar programs filtered down to all of the employees. The hiring practices had to be reevaluated and new companies that understood the importance and benefits of diversity were utilized. Denny’s then looked at other aspects of their business like their vendors and realized that this was another area that needed focus and made appropriate changes.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
In 1950, former J.C. Penny employee, Sam Walton opened Walton’s Five and Dime in Bentonville, Arkansas. By 1965, in the same small town Walton would open the first Walmart store unknowing that his investment would become the world’s largest retailer. By keeping sales prices low Walton was able to get ahead of the competition and successfully opened an additional store within the same year. Walton’s success continued and by 1967 his chain of stores had grown to 24 locations, and was bringing in about $12.6 million dollars in sales annually.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
The defendants were Dr. Stotler along with Aetna, provider of professional liability insurance for Dr. Stotler, and the hospital along with Argonaut Insurance Co., the insurer of the hospital. The first court affirms the jury’s verdict and the defendants were found liable for the death of the infant.
Discrimination continues to run rampant throughout organizations in both the United States and worldwide. The Supreme Court case, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealt with 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees that claim that they had been a victim of gender discrimination. The ensuing pages will discuss the specific issues that the plaintiffs encountered, followed by suggestions from a human resource manager’s stand point in rectifying adverse impact within the Wal-Mart organization.
Compensation involves monetary awards and can be difficult to decide the proper amount of compensation to make the plaintiff whole. In some instance the compensatory damages may seem too far exceed the actual loss of the plaintiff. In addition to over compensation to the plaintiff, another concern is how lawyers are paid for their services. The perception is that lawyers make to much money compared to the plaintiff. Many people, politicians, and companies believe that tort system is defective and requires reform to bring the system more in line with the original intent of tort