Holding The court was in unanimous agreement of the decision. They rejected the defendant’s appeals for retrial, motion for JNOV (Judgment notwithstanding verdict), rejected their motion for remittur (reduction of punitive damages granted by jury). The rulings were mostly in favor of the plaintiff. The jury returned its verdict on February 25, 2013, finding: • Prolift’s design was not defective • Ethicon’s warnings to the implanting surgeon was inadequate. • The defendant’s failure to provide complete warnings was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. • The defendants did not make fraudulent misrepresentation to the implanting surgeon. • The defendants made a fraudulent misrepresentation to plaintiff • The defendants' fraudulent
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
“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
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
The court findings have finally come to a conclusion, to confirm regard to defendants Alexander, McCarthy, Caruso, and Correctional Medical Services Inc. because the Plantiff has poorly provided evidence specifying suspicious indifference. However, the court overturned the district court’s granting of summary judgment to Heebsh and Pausits, two defendants who return to custody for further actions because of sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference to survive summary judgment.
Our client, Peter LaFleur (“Lafleur”) has been sued for breach of contract. The lawsuit was filed by Perfect Diamond Baseball Academy (“PDBA”) on the ground that LaFleur violated a Noncompetition Agreement that he signed in his employment contract by opening a competing baseball facility after he was terminated. PDBA claims the opening of LaFleur’s business is detrimental to the future success of PDBA.
A. The proximate cause is the third element of negligence. It is defined as a cause that is legally sufficient to impose liability for the results of one’s wrongful act or omission. In this case, the actual cause of Pete’s injury would not have occurred if it wasn’t for Tom’s actions. Pete would not have gotten hit by a car if it wasn’t for Tom’s actions/omission. In regards to the substantial-factor test, Tom’s actions was a substantial factor that produced the accident that caused Pete to get hit by a car. In regards to the legal cause, the defendant drove his motorcycle into a horse. It was a foreseeable consequence that the horse would react negatively or that the horse would get wild, irate, angry, or scared. As a result, it was foreseeable that the horse would act out in a way that he hadn’t acted before (jumping over a five-foot fence). Therefore, Tom was the legal
Civil law is interesting to me because it protects the private rights of all, and in this nation’s current state, I think that’s as important as ever. Compared to common laws, these laws are put in place based off rules and codes that are established. I’ve had experience in the civil law by owning and operating a business. Due to the laws and practices that are in place, it’s easy for me to run my operation. Another situation that I’ve found myself in dealing with civil law is when I was attempting to break a lease due to miswording in a signed contract. This was a long process, but in the end, I won the case due to them adjusting their contract without their customer’s knowledge.
McOskar Enterprises, Inc. owns and manages a health and fitness center identified as “Curves for Women”. Tammey J. Anderson, the complainant, joined Curves on April 2, 2003. As part of the joining process Anderson signed a release of liability agreement. This agreement released Curves from any liabilities related to injuries that might be sustained by contributing in any activities or through the use of equipment. The agreement also stated that participants agreed to all risks of death or injury that could occur, Anderson read and signed the agreement of terms with Curves. After completing the liability agreement, Anderson began working out under the observation of a Curves’ trainer using the machines within the facility. During the workout Anderson notified the trainer that she began to feel pain in her neck, shoulder and arm, but finished her workout. She continued to feel the pain when she got home and pursued medical attention. As part of her prescribed medical treatment she was sent for a course a physical therapy. In June 2003 Anderson underwent a cervical discectomy, a procedure used to treat nerve or spinal cord compression. After her procedure Anderson sued Curves, claiming negligent acts during her workout. Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc., 712 NW 2d 796 (Minn. 2006).
“Democracy in America is over” (Grayson). The Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Citizens United leads us further down a path that will leave everyday citizens disenfranchised and wealthy, private interests more powerful than ever. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court by Citizens United after lower courts declared their film, “Hillary”, illegal under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It was considered independent spending on what is essentially political propaganda attacking Hillary Clinton and spending falling into this category made within 30 days of an election is illegal under the BCRA. Citizens United claimed that the part of the law they were said to be in violation of was unconstitutional and limited their free speech and that they were not in violation anyway, since their advertising was not done by direct