While at a gym Alack was participating in a workout routine known as the “super circuit” when the handle of the upright row machine became disconnected and slammed into Alack’s face dislocating his jaw and breaking or loosening teeth, upon closer examination of the machine it was found that a safety pin was not in place as was specified by the manufacturer, the machine was shipped by the manufacturer with the pin in place as warnings that the pin was “vital to user safety”. Prior to this incident Alack had signed a two page seventeen paragraph contract; however the contract did not excuse the business of damages resulting from its own negligence or fault. The court sided with Alack and awarded $17,000 in damages to him for surgical and dental
Stirling Bridge had been a thriving power tool business for over 100 years. The company had sold and distributed power tools and equipment all over the U.S., Europe, and third world countries. Recently one of Stirling Bridge’s top selling products, the Braveheart power tool line, came under attack when consumer agencies conducted research and found many consumers who purchased the power tools were experiencing significant harm and personal injury after use. Stirling Bridge (STIRLING BRIDGE) had identified potential safety concerns with their power tools and hired an independent research company to investigate why consumers were being injured using their power tools, well before the company came under the attack of public agencies.
Richard Arzu underwent a surgical procedure to correct a condition he was born with; known as dwarfism. He became paralyzed from the waist down as a result of the operation. Through legal representatives, Richard was awarded a substantial structured settlement from his malpractice action against the hospital that performed the said surgical procedure. The settlement payments were deposited into a joint account between Richard and Frank. Over a period of a few years, the father withdrew numerous times, large amounts of money. These transactions were not authorized or to the knowledge of the son. When Richard turned eighteen, the fund...
Their testimony has shown that my client has suffered extensive physical and mental injuries as a result of this accident. The auto accident expert also presented testimony which supports the plaintiff’s claim that had Mr. Jamerson not been illegally driving a commercial tractor in the far left lane on the Howard Franklin Bridge, the accident could have been avoided, or at least made a much smaller impact than the accident my client was involved in. The various testimony presented by the experts has shown that my client is in no way at fault for her injuries, and that she has and will continue to suffer permanent injury as a result of both defendant’s
Immar Medrano was employed as a journeyman electrician by Marshall Electrical Contracting, Inc. (MEC). Medrano attended an electrician apprenticeship night class at a community college. His tuition and books were paid for by MEC. One night, when Medrano was driving home from the class, a drunk driver crossed the centerline of U.S. Highway 65 and collided head-on with Medrano’s automobile. Medrano died in the accident. His wife and two children filed a workers’ compensation claim for death benefits against MEC. Medrano’s family should receive workers compensations since he was acting within the scope of his employment when he sustained injuries in the car crash that resulted in his death. This was in the scope of his employment since MEC paid
Plaintiff, Sandra Johnson, seeks damages for negligence against Chris Williams as a result of a car accident. On November 01, 2013, Defendant, Chris Williams was in a car accident at the intersection of Elm and Maple Street traveling at approximately 5:45pm- 6:00pm. when Mrs. Johnson’s vehicle struck his car. (Williams Dep. Pg. 2). Mrs. Johnson was alone in her car, a white Toyota Corolla, going north on Elm. At the intersection,
He remained an undischarged bankrupt when the proceedings were commenced against the respondent. The judge of the original trial struck out the appellant’s claims for damages, declaring it a nullity from the outset as the relief sought was vested in the appellant’s trustee in bankruptcy. The appellant made an appeal to the Court of Appeal, who stayed the decision, pending the completion of the trial. The trial resumed, subject to the outcome of the appeal regarding the appellant’s bankruptcy. The trial court found that the appellant was entitled to a 24-month notice period for termination, and the appellant was awarded damages for wrongful dismissal and aggravated damages in the amount of $15,000 for mental distress, for both tort and contract. However, the appellant was not awarded punitive damages. With regard to the bankruptcy issue, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, concluding that the appellant was within his legal rights to continue the action without a trustee. The Court of Appeal also allowed a cross-appeal by the respondent, which saw the reasonable notice period reduced from 24 months to 15 months. The appeal court also overturned the trial court’s award of aggravated
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 $900 dollars with interest from the dates of the trial court’s judgement and the cost of the suit.
Obviously, with a little common sense, your average consumer can avoid the injuries that the above statements are attempting to warn against. One can argue that these warnings provide protection to the manufacturers against lawsuits based upon personal injury.
The title of case is Decision on Damages. The case involves a contract issue. It was decided in Supreme Court- State of New York Commercial Division Trial Term, Part 44 Suffolk County, and entered in July 13, 2017. Theresa Federico who is plaintiff brings the action against defendants Anthony Brancatob and Joseph Brancatob who the action are brought. The plaintiff and defendants are in the same family. The family has a commercial printing business named Challenge Graphics Services, Inc. ("Challenge Graphics"). Both plaintiff and defendant are the shareholders of the business. They signed an agreement when they entered the organization called "Shareholders Agreement" which contained two clauses that the plaintiff thought she was damaged. One
It is New Year's Eve. Brenda and Carl are neighbors, Carl had a New Year's Eve party at his house and when the New Year arrived, Carl and his friends shot illegal fireworks in the air. The one Carl shot malfunctioned and burned down Brenda's garden. In this case Brenda suffered a loss (her garden), Carl inflicted that loss with his negligent behavior, as neighbors Carl had a duty to not allow his negligence to affect Brenda and because this duty was violated Brenda saw fit to sue for her loss. I rule that he has to replace the garden by paying Brenda 350$. Waldron would approve of this ruling because Brenda is not asking for an unreasonable number, she is only receiving what she lost. Waldron’s critique on tort law is that sometimes it is a matter of luck and the person being sued is faced with a greater punishment than what they deserve. My ruling would avoid Waldron’s critique because Brenda is strictly receiving enough money to replace what she lost.
Safety is a primary concern in the health care environment, but there are still many preventable errors that occur. In fact, a study from ProPublica in 2013 found that between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year suffer preventable harm in the hospital (Allen, 2013). Safety in the healthcare environment is not only keeping the patient safe, but also the employee. If a nurse does not follow procedure, they could bring harm to themselves, the patient, or both. Although it seems like such a simple topic with a simple solution, there are several components to what safety really entails. Health care professionals must always be cautious to prevent any mishaps to their patients, especially when using machines or lifting objects, as it has a higher
Safety and OSHA News. Is OSHA really barred from enacting a new ergonomics rule? (2012,
Rehrig Pacific Company has been in business since 1913. Over 100 years in business, family owned and operated since then. Now on its 5 generation of owners. Rehrig Pacific has been in business since before the creation of OSHA and the OSH act of 1970. For years Rehrig worked and produced products and did their best to provide a safe workplace for their employees as they saw as extended family. There were many things done in the past that would not be okay to do in today’s safety world. Safety guards on machines were not used, at many times taken off to increase productivity and efficiency. Employees would climb on top of equipment was part of
The IOM defines patient safety as “freedom from accidental injury” (Sadeghi, 2013, p.69). This section provides a detailed analysis of the causes of the problem identified. Students should clearly demonstrate the use of
... the cart over a person’s foot and crushed the top of the foot. The person that was hurt never was the same and eventually had to turn to their disability because they could no longer stand over thirty minutes at a time. If the material handler had just took the time to have come in front of the cart to let the person know the cart is going to be moved then this would have been avoided.