Jan Schlichtmann, is the head of a small firm of personal injury attorneys, who is also known to be a successful lawyer in Boston. This small firm only takes on cases they believe they can win. Their clients are for the most part too poor to pay legal fees. Schlichtmann 's firm pays for the legal costs. In which they hope they can gain a portion of an eventual settlement. Essentially, Schlichtmann constantly gambles with the firm 's money. Every time he accepts a case he is gambling the money of the firm. That 's why he originally turns down the case of parents who want to sue for an apology for the deaths of their children. He doesn 't see enough money in this case to justify the risk. Schlichtmann, initially rejects the case just …show more content…
The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act. The tort of negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar circumstance. Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, a failure to exercise reasonable care. Cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages and proximate cause. Which is showing that the harm is within the scope of liability. The two companies, Beatrice Foods and J. Riley Leather Company, breached that duty. The fact that they breached that duty resulted in the continuation of many kids getting sick and dying. The plaintiff’s suffered a legal recognizable injury. Schlictmann was fortunate to prove that the plaintiffs including the residents of Woburn had the right to have clean drinking water. Under a variety government acts the drinking water should be sanitary. Both companies had a duty to care, and not to illegally dump toxic chemicals into any water source. Specially knowing they could be contaminating drinking
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Torts can be divided into two main categories; negligence and intentional torts. Negligence torts function as the hallmark of tort liability, and of tort law suits, are the most common. Under this legal premise, people have the responsibility to act with proper diligence and reasonable care and skill to avoid injuring other people. Intentional torts are civil wrongs that were committed deliberately. In contrast to a negligence act that is usually an accident caused by the lack of responsible care. Under tort law, intentional torts include acts of assault, battery, slander and libel, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Jan Schlichtmann is the main character of this true story. As a prominent attorney from Boston, who has an ego to match his bank account, he seems obsessed to find a way to consistently find bigger settlements and make a name for himself in the legal community. Though slightly inexperienced, he seems to be a natural in the courtroom, and even more so in the "game" of out-of-court-settlements. Jan owed part of his success due to the fact he surrounded himself with people who "counterbalanced" his personality. It is through their support in most of this story that he was able to negotiate through the tribulations. But through a host of events, Jan ended up spearheading the Wo...
In the 1970s, engineers found contaminants in the local wells: Well H and Well G. They found suspected carcinogens including trichloroethylene (TCE) known to cause cancer. Families gathered after the Anderson family noticed the recurring events of a rare disease in a small town. Although Woburn had a history of industrial activity, the two major companies that contributed to the contaminants were W.R. Grace Co. and Beatrice Foods. The families sought help and went to a Boston lawyer, Joe Mulligan, and signed his firm. No one picked up the case due to not enough evidence, but Jan Schlictmann, who was a newcomer, picked up the Woburn case. Although advised to neglect it, he still looked into it. He joined with a non-profit firm who were seeking an environmental case like Woburn’s. They quickly filed a complaint against the two major companies.
Jack’s case is an example of medical negligence. The physician that prescribed the prescription should have done a full physical and medical exam on the patient. Jack’s physician failed to ask if he was allergic to any medication. Before prescribing any medication one of the first questions should be what or if they are allergic to anything. Jack faced several health complications such as difficult breathing, turning red, and falling to the floor. He went into anaphylactic shock due to the fatal allergic reaction. The last encounter with Sulfa, Jack developed a rash due to the allergic reaction. Health professionals are required to undergo training
Law of Torts is a civil wrong and is an unreasonable interference with the interests of others. Law of Torts provides protection against harmful conduct, it attempts to provide an impartial set of rules for resolving private disputes over claims of improper interference with individual rights. A common denominator of each Law of Tort is a failure on the defendant’s part to exercise the level of care that the law deems due to the plaintiff, and the normal remedy for this is unliquidated damages. Negligence is one of these Torts, it is an independent tort as it is an element for other torts. Negligence is causing loss by failure to take reasonable care when there is a duty to do so. To succeed in an action for negligence the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care to avoid
First, a tort discussed in the Essentials of Business Law book is negligence. Failing to exercise reasonable care to protect others from risk or harm is considered negligence (Luizzo, 2016). Recently, due to the success of cases against negligent individuals and business, it has become a more common practice. For example, a person may now be more encouraged to sue a company due to an injury caused by a certain product. However, even when it’s not an
Before the jury decides a verdict, the last step in the trial process is the closing arguments. There were no closing arguments because the parties had to settle on nine million dollars. They did this because the plaintiff’s attorneys went bankrupt due to this case and they couldn’t afford to invest any more money into the case. Beatrice Foods ended up being not liable for the deaths of children so they were allowed to leave the case. Due to this, only W.R. Grace had to settle with the plaintiff. Later on in 1988, Jan Schlichtmann brought this case to the EPA’s attention and the EPA decided to bring lawsuits against the companies. W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods ended up having to pay for their huge mistake. They had to pay for the largest chemical cleanup in the Northeastern which cost sixty- four million dollars.
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
Who is the lawyer you may ask? What kind of person is the lawyer throughout the story? The lawyer doesn’t mention anything about himself except the fact of his job and age. He doesn’t even give his name nor the name of anyone in the story. Through the words that he speaks, the lawyer is a person who like to have structure. The enactment of dealing with people on a personal base is to much of a confrontation for lawyer. Through the ordeal of his interaction with each of his scriveners we learn that the lawyer plays it safe.
Two weeks before he was supposed to start at a firm in Boston, Harvey’s best friend was in an accident in Virginia. Harvey broke land speed records getting to the hospital in Staunton. His friend was okay, banged up, bruised, and suffering two broken ribs, a concussion, and a sprained wrist. His wife was sore and bruised, as were his two young daughters that had gratefully been asleep at the time of the wreck and hadn’t processed what happened until much later. Pacing about the hospital waiting area, Harvey had seen five attorneys all waiting for his friend to be released so they could begin a lawsuit against the tractor trailer driver who had nicked them and sent them into the guardrail. That’s when Harvey had decided not to be a lawyer.
We as human beings assume we have our lives under control and we can exert some power over the situations in our lives. The Lawyer believed in a natural assumption of having the power and control over what he considered a lower less sophisticated class of humanity hence his employees in this story. Bartleby created a situation for the Lawyer he has never experienced before. The Lawyer learns in the end after Bartleby’s death that his rules of society may not be right for all of humanity.
There are many ways someone can interpret “Bartleby the Scrivener”. I think throughout the story the narrator (the Lawyer) is the more sympathetic character.