FISHER v CARROUSEL MOTOR HOTEL, INC No. B 342 Supreme Court of Texas, Dec. 27, 1967 Facts: The Plaintiff was a mathematician worked in a Space Agency call NASA and accepted an invitation to a one-day meeting at the Carrousel Motor Hotel. At lunch time, the hotel services it as a buffet and the Plaintiff were close to served its food when the Defendant an employee of Carrousel Hotel and manager of the Brass Ring Club dispossess the Plaintiff of his plate and in a loud manner said and offensive words that embarrassed and harm the Plaintiff. 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. Issued Presented: The Battery may occur regardless a physical contact, it is possible to compensate the mental and psychological damages caused by the Defendant's conduct. Also, are the Corporations liable for the conduct of his employees? Decision: The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the decision from the Court of Civil Appeals …show more content…
This case is very important for futures situations because it is not required a physical contact in order to perform a Battery. The Court clarified that are part of the body the objects that may be attached to it, as in this case the dish that the Plaintiff has in his hand. Also, the responsibilities of the corporation by the conduct of its employees. They must carefully instruct his employees to avoid that kind of conducts. In this case, the Corporation was condemned because was unable to prove that it did not support the conduct of the
III. Issue. The issue is whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the employer appellee on the employee appellant’s sexual harassment claim, and whether the court was right in excluding evidence regarding the sexual
Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.P.pdf (last visited Apr.4, 2014).
In the case of Michael T. Vandall, M.D., Plaintiff and Appellant v. Trinity Hospitals, a corporation, and Margaret C. Nordell, M.D., the issue is about retaliatory discharge. It deals with problems with Trinity Hospital in North Dakota, Dr. Margaret Nordell and Dr. Michael Vandall, both physicians working in the OB-GYN department.
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
Plaintiff Debra Denise Gregg filed a sexual harassment suit for violations of Title VII, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act against Hay-Adams Hotel. She sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 for damages resulting from emotional distress and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff Anthony Gregg brought the claim for damages resulting from loss of companionship and consortium in the amount of $1,000,000. The judges dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s accounts lacked consortium and that the facts did not support her claims for emotional distress and punitive damage.
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
John and Megan are at a crowded theater. In the press of people exiting the theater, John accidentally steps on Megan's toe and breaks it. Megan can sue John for the tort of battery.
The main purpose of this Essay is to advise the parties as to any potential liability in tort and under the protection from Harassment Act 1997, also to find out the particulars of the case and list the points that are necessary in order for someone be found guilty.
In conclusion, McIntyre vs. Balentine was a landmark case in the United States regarding contributory negligence in a lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed following an accident in which the plaintiff and defendant were involved though they disputed each other’s claims on the chronology of events preceding the incident. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that they were equally at fault despite the fact that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling since comparative negligence is not law in the state and affirming the admissibility of criminal presumption of intoxication as evidence in a civil case.
Thus, the defendant was charged with negligence by making its employee work unreasonably long work hours when the manager knew his employee, Matt, might be risking his and others' life in danger by driving back home from work after his long shift.
As the court of last resort, the Supreme Court hears appeals of decisions in civil cases from lower courts. Its decisions are not subject to review by any other court.” Like the State Court of Criminal Appeals, it is composed of a chief justice and eight justices. But, a difference to note would be that this court has the legal authority to make legal determinations where other courts in Texas nave no jurisdiction under. In short, anything that does not fall under the jurisdiction or responsibilities of the lower courts is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of Texas. This court, like the Court of Criminal Appeals, makes the rules of practice and procedure governing trials and appeals in civil and juvenile cases, but the difference here is the cases involved (civil and juvenile). The Supreme court of Texas also holds the responsibility of (in my own words) setting the rules for the judicial branch. It, according to Texas Politics (2017), “establishes the rules of administration for the Texas judicial system, as well as the rules of operation of the state Office of Court Administration, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the State Bar of Texas, and other state agencies in the judicial branch of
On January 22, 1973 the court issued its opinion with a 7-2 majority voting to strike down the Texas law. State laws outlawing abortion were set aside by the court, permitting abortions during the first three months of pregnancy and setting standards for regulations after that time to safeguard the women's health. The Supreme Court declared all but the least restrictive state statues unconstitutional. Noting that early abortions had become safer than childbirth and reasoning that the word "person" in the constitution "does not include the unborn." The Court
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
Battery and assault fall under the law of tort, which is an amalgamation of obligations, rights,