Facts
• Mold was growing on the windows of Stroot’s apartment and in her bathroom.
• The bathroom ceiling collapsed and reveled black, green, orange, and white mold.
• The next morning Stroot was transported to the hospital because she was having trouble breathing.
• Dr. Yang, a mycologist, took samples from the apartment and found excessive and abnormal mold growth caused by leaks that were not fixed.
• Dr. Johanning, a board-certified physician in environmental and occupational medicine, took Stroot’s blood and found that the mold had permanently increased the severity of Stroot’s asthma. Dr. Johanning also discovered that Stroot was now allergic to Penicillium and has permanent upper repertory problems.
• Dr. Gordon, a neuropsychologist who studies defects caused by
…show more content…
Rose, a physician certified in pulmonary, environmental and occupational medicine, determined Stroot developed osteopenia due to her use of steroids, which was caused by her exposure to the mold.
• Michael Lynn, an architect, noted standing water, roof joints covered with fungus, water damages dry-wall covered in mold, and other signs of excessive moisture. All of his observations were caused by delayed and improper maintenance by the landlord.
Procedure New Haverford Partnership v. Stroot began in the Superior Court of Delaware. The Superior Court of Delaware awarded Stroot $1,000,000 for personal injuries and $5,000 for property damages. The court also awarded Watson, Stroot’s roommate, $40,000 for personal injuries.
Issue The Supreme court is examining the issue of whether the trial court made the correct decision to allow the plaintiffs to peruse a common law negligence claim. The court was also asked to review the total amount of damages awarded to Stroot and Watson, New Haverford Partnership claims the total amount of damages was excessive that they shock the conscience. The final issue that the court was asked to examine was the reliability of the experts and their
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 .
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
Questions Presented: This is where the legal issues are stated that the party would like for the appellate court to think about and make a final decision (Statsky, pg. 545).
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.
MacEwing, J. M. (October 25, 2005). Making Sense of the Recent Case Law. Jenkins Marzban Logan
Summary Judgment should be granted only upon a showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Rairigh, 59 Md. App. 305, 313, cert. denied, 301 Md. 176 (1984). If there is a conflict between the inferences which may be drawn from the evidence before the court, summary judgment is not proper. Boucher v. Riner, 68 Md. App. 539, 543 (1986) (quoting Coffey v. Derby Steel Co., 291 Md. 241, 246-247 (1981)). Unless the facts are so clear as to permit a conclusion as a matter of law, it is for the trier of fact to determine whether a defendant’s negligent conduct amounts to gross negligence. Jacob v. Davis, 128 Md.App. 433, 465 (1999) (quoting Artis v. Cyphers, 100 Md.App. 633, 652 (1994)). Generally, exculpatory agreements otherwise valid are not construed to cover the more extreme forms of negligence-wilful, wanton, reckless, or gross. Winterstein v. Wilcom, 16 Md.App. 130, 136 (1972).
Facts: The P (Kendra Knight) was participating in a coed touch football game, while playing the D (Michael Jewett) broke the plaintiff's finger by knocking her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. Where Knight had to get a number of four surgeries and she lost her finger. According to the D claim he was only trying intercept a pass and when he came down he stepped on her hand. He did not mean to hurt or injured Knight. The P says otherwise she says Jewett came behind and knocked her down. She put her arms out to break the fall and Jewett ran over her, stepping on her hand. The P is suing the D for negligence and assault and battery. Knight appealed the ruling of the decision.
Procedural History: The 61st District Court granted Defendant’s motion. The Plaintiff appeals and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Texas, reversed the decision and condemn for a battery occurred and the corporation was condemn for exemplary damages of $900 dollars with interest from the dates of the trial court’s judgement and the cost of the suit.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
Thursday afternoon Clara had just had hockey practice and was getting undressed. Many times before practices, a ‘traditional’, her teammates always steal and run around with Molly’s(a teammate) hat. This time when Clara was untying her skates Molly took Clara’s hat. Clara chased after her, managing to take her skates off first. She was barefoot and was running across the floor that many people have with sweaty feet. Clara won’t see signs it for 2-3 weeks, but after running on dirty floors she has Athlete’s Foot.
Glen Carver is a 56 year old male who was admitted unto the cardiovascular care unit 48 hours ago with the diagnosis of heart failure. Mr. Carver went to see his primary care provider with complaints of dyspnea on exertion, a nonproduction cough, decreased activity intolerance, and general fatigue all of which have been worsening over the past two months. The primary care provider found Mr. Carver to have lower extremity swelling, profound ...
The decision resulting from Dusky v. United States (1960) gave rise to the “Dusky standard”, which works to prevent an unfair trial by allowing a defendant to be deemed incompetent if he does not meet the standards for competence. Once deemed incompetent to stand trial, the defendant may be restored back to competence and subsequently referred back to court for a trial setting. Many variables affect whether a def...
1. Unusual health problems including acute respiratory infections, heavy dry coughing, mouth bleeding, abdominal hemorrhage, chemical skin reaction.
Based on the merits of this case, the author hereby renders his legal opinion on the rights and potential liabilities of the parties arising from the series of events.
Most cases of athlete’s foot are caused by fungus. People get athlete’s foot by coming into contact with the fungus, and it will begin to grow on the skin. “Fungi com...