Lawnmower Suit
In the case of Howard vs. Lawns, Inc., Mr. Howard purchased a Grass Guzzler lawn mower from Lawns Inc. While using the lawn mower, it overheated and caught fire resulting in third degree burns on his feet and ankles. Mr. Howard filed a lawsuit against Lawns Inc. for his injuries. He wants to sue Lawns Inc. for not putting a warning label and automatic shut-off on the lawn mower which resulted in him being burned. In Lawns Inc. defense, they can claim negligence on Mr. Howard's part for not watching the temperature gauge and not reading the owner's manual. I think that Mr. Howard is at fault and Lawns Inc. is going to win the case.
Mr. Howard can file suit in Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Ohio. He cannot file suit in New York, because Lawns Inc. has no stores there. In order for him to file suit in one of those State Courts, he must meet two requirements. The first requirement states that the corporation or business must have headquarters or a store in the state that the person wishes to sue in. The second requirement states that one can file suit in the state in which the subject matter is located. In order to file suit in Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, he must meet both requirements. He cannot file suit in New York because Lawns Inc. does not have a store there. If he wishes to file suit in Federal Court, there are two requirements he must meet. The first requirement states that the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. The second requirement states that the dispute must be between parties of different states. Mr. Howard meets the requirements for bringing suit in Delaware, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, and he could possibly file suit in Federal Court if he was suing for more than $75,000.
The main point that Mr. Howard can argue is negligence on the part of Lawns Inc. Negligence falls under common law, which is determined by the courts. It is defined as failure to exercise a standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation. Lawns Inc. should have installed the automatic shut-off mechanism which would have prevented Mr. Howard from being burned. Mr. Howard can also argue that the owner's manual didn't state the danger clearly and large enough. Lawns Inc. owes Mr. Howard a duty of care which would have been installing the automatic shut-off mechanism on the lawn mower.
How was McDonald’s supposed to know that Stella would spill the coffee on herself? Coffee is meant to be served hot, just as blades are meant to be sharp. Stella suing for being burned by coffee is the same principal as a person suing a knife company after being cut by one of their products. The world is a dangerous place; many things around us have the capability to cause damage. Corporations should not be held responsible for any damage sustained after using their product improperly. McDonald’s could not have prevented Stella spilling the coffee on herself.
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
In this case, the Plaintiff, Louise Smith alleges that the defendant, George Jamerson was negligently operating the Fed-Ex commercial tractor trailer when he failed to stop with traffic and caused a multi-car collision. Although he did not physically hit my client, defendant Jamerson’s failure to safely operate the Fed-Ex truck caused the accident which has permanently an adversely affected my clients life. The judge will instruct you that negligence is defined as “the failure to use reasonable care”. “Reasonable
Under California Law, should Charles and Paddy’s be held liable by the court for negligence and award Dennis with compensation when the incident occurred as a result of Dennis’ and Charlie’s destruction of the property, Charles owed no duty to Dennis, Dennis knew the foreseeable risk just as well as Charles, and Paddy’s had posted warnings for the damages that caused the incident in question?
Defendant must show that plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for their own safety which caused the damage. It is not necessary for plaintiff t...
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
This case arises from a November 14, 2010 fire, which damaged a Dunkin Donuts (the “Property”) owned and operated by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff’s had hired the Defendant to renovate the property. The fire occurred while the Property was closed for renovations, and the Defendant was in sole possession and control of the Property during the renovation. The fire originated at or near a gas-fired water heater that was located in a storage/utility closet at the Property. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant placed combustible materials near the hot water heater, which then caught fire. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of proceeds
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
The plaintiffs, Bosse and Griffin, sued Chili’s for negligence seeking compensatory damages claiming a patron who pursued them following their skipping out on a restaurant bill was acting as agent for Chili’s at the time the patron caused the plaintiff’s car accident and that Chili’s was, therefore, responsible for the crash.
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
This is a complex case, involving multiple parties and several variables that need to be examined thoroughly. The parties mentioned include Knarles operator of the facility maintenance company, his son Barkley, their employee, a licensed plumber, and Mr. Chetum. Although in the end Chetum is suing the facilities maintenance firm for a breach of contract, all factors must be examined to determine proper fault.
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
It seems as though Brad and Chardonnay have been subject to professional negligence, or more specific negligent misstatement. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, one of the significant difference being you cannot claim for economic loss within general negligence but you can in professional (provided specific criteria are met).
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.