Does anyone wake up one day thinking “today’s the day my name will go down in history?” It is hard to imagine that Mrs. Gladys Escola woke up on that fateful 21st day of August in 1941 thinking that her life was going to forever change the laws of the land. That day, Mrs. Escola went to her work at Tiny’s Waffle Shop, a restaurant in Merced, California. A waitress, part of her duties consisted of refilling the refrigerators with soft drinks. One of them, a bottle of Coca-Cola, broke in her hand producing a long and deep cut that went from the bottom of her index finger to the pad and web by her thumb, damaging nerves and blood vessels. After the incident, she was unable to resume a full work schedule, and unable to fully resume her waitressing …show more content…
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14 …show more content…
This trend began to ebb with MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., and the ruling by an appellate court that favored MacPherson, the plaintiff. This case, however, was more a result of political expediency than a reasoned verdict based on fact. In this case, the plaintiff argued that his 1911 Baby Buick had a defective wheel that collapsed while traveling at a low rate of speed, hitting a telephone pole, and pinning him under, breaking his wrist and cracking several ribs; however, the facts of the trial revealed that the accident as it was recounted by the plaintiff was a physical impossibility, but due to the increasing pressures to dispense with privity rulings, the court imposed on the defendant the responsibility of inspecting and discarding defective wheels, implying causal negligence even though the plaintiff had driven the vehicle for more than a year in less than perfect road conditions without a mishap. (MacPherson Tort Story; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: Simplifying the Facts While Reshaping the Law, Pg.
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 .
This design defect, however, does not mean that the plaintiff is awarded since the design defect was not the proximate cause of injury for Cheyenne. Due to Gordon’s modification of the seat belt, Ford is not liable for the injuries that Cheyenne suffered. Stark ex. rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 472, 723 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2012). The evidence supports the idea that her spinal cord injury was a direct result of placing the seat belt behind her back. Preemption as a theory that would bar the Starks from recovering does not apply in this case, since the federal government’s regulations do not make manufacturers immune to design defect claims. Stark’s claims of inadequate warnings likewise do not apply since the misuse of the product, it’s alteration, is the proximate cause of injury. Had the modification of the seat belt not been the proximate cause of injury, and instead a contributing factor, the court might have decided that Stark was only twenty percent responsible for the injury that occurred. This amount of contributory negligence would not have barred them from recovering, according to Indiana Statutes, and Ford would have been liable for the
Affirmative Action Question: Newton and Wasserstrom seem to disagree about whether affirmative action is a form of reverse discrimination. Explain how each arrives at their position about whether or not affirmative action is similar to or different from discriminatory laws of the Jim Crow era
The video True Colors- Racial Discrimination in Everyday Life ½ (2010), was really interesting yet disturbing to watch. This was an experiment where a black and white male, who were equal in everything, such as jobs and education, were to do the same things in St. Louis, Missouri and see if they would get treated equally, and if not, how differently they would be treated. The experiment showed time and time again racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is according to Thefreedictionary.com (2015), “discriminatory of abusive behavior towards members of another race” and “unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice”.
The case, Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, explores the issue of suspected racial discrimination associated with disparate treatment and disparate impact caused by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) against a qualified, experienced boilermaker and foreman that is African American. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding this case include: Is this a case of disparate treatment and/or impact and was the plaintiff, David Dunlap, subject to racial discrimination? Finally, did the TVA use personal hiring practices that allowed for racial bias in the interviewing process?
Social Exchange Theory & Power: Detective Graham is asked to make a statement that the white undercover cop that killed the black cop even though this information can possibly be false. In return, the prosecutor states he will erase his brother’s criminal record and provide him with a promotion.
Racism in its most general sense can be defined as “social practices which (explicitly or implicitly) attribute merits or allocate values to members of racially categorized groups solely because of their “race” (Banks, 2013, p. 65). Individuals that are introduced into the criminal justice system are still citizens no matter the color of their skin. As a citizen of the United States you are afforded certain rights and protections while progressing through the steps of the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, not all individuals are treated the same once they are introduced into the system. Once an individual is introduced into the system, a series steps begins. As each of these steps is approached, decisions need to be made by the law
Turner, Billy. 1986. “Race and Peremptory Challenges During Voir Dire: Do Prosecution and Defense Agree?” Journal of Criminal Justice 14: 61-69.
The manager at that McDonald’s restaurant, the defendant, knew Matt had to drive a long way to and from work. Even though this information was known, the manager gave an opportunity to Matt to work a cleaning shift between his regular shifts. My thoughts are that the manager should not have given the opportunity to Matt on the first place as the manager knew Matt was already working from 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm on April 4th, 1988 and 5:00 am to 8:21 am on April 5th, 1988 and had to drive 20 minutes to and from work. Adding a cleanup shift from 12:00 am to 5:00 am on April 5th, 1988 made Matt’s working hours excessively long. By the end of his shift, it is obvious that Matt is over worked and not in a condition to drive back. This lack of judgement from the manager eventually lead to the accident and death of Matt, and massive injury to Frederick M. Faverty, the plaintiff. Due to this lack of judgement, I think the verdict against McDonald’s to pay $400,000.00 to the plaintiff is
Race has consistently been one of the most highly debated issues in the education field for decades. It is often a central factor in Supreme Court cases, such as the recent Schuette V. Coalition which prohibited the consideration of race admissions in Michigan, as well as the focus of student campaigns such as “I, too, am Harvard” which aims to create a voice for underrepresented students. Overall this issue can be broken into two main topics, representation and opportunity, two interconnected subjects, that without which it is difficult for any individual of group to find success.
Derrington HD. Theory of negligence advanced in the High Court of Australia. The Australian Law Journal. 2004;78:595-611.
: Individuals are protected from discrimination based on national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. National origin refers to a person’s roots-that is, the county in which the person or the person’s ancestors were born. The four-step test for national origin discrimination is as follows:
According to Oxford Dictionaries, race relations are "…Relations between members or communities of different races within one country" (Oxford Dictionaries, 2017). Race relations are based on differences an individual possesses (physical and genetic traits) in comparison to other people. The traits explained by G. Edwards "are important in contributing to the observed ecological, economic, social, and political which constitute the subject matter of race relations" (Edwards, 2008). Therefore, the way in which a person differs from a certain racial group will lead to the same differences in cultural characteristics. Additionally, many critics claim race relations have seen a positive shift since the end of WWII and brought about a change in the composition of racial minorities; members within a group who appear less powerful in comparison to a larger group
Discrimination should be avoided at all costs if for no other reason than it is against the law. It is expressly forbidden because of the problems it has caused for certain groups. However, forbidding it was not enough and laws were passed to counteract its effects. But the legislative approach was unable to achieve acceptance and inclusion; it could not create and/or maintain an environment that appreciated each person and treated him or her with dignity and respect. The eradication of discrimination requires more than legal compliance. It goes beyond mere placement of individuals. An inclusive environment brings out the best in everyone and enhances life’s experiences.
Over the past couple years, there has been a growing number of incidents involving racial