More handpicked essays just for you.
Persuasive essay techniques higher english
Persuasive essay techniques higher english
Persuasive essay contaceptives
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
1. Purpose - To prove negligence of both General Palmer Railroad and engineer Lee Thompson in regards to the accident that killed John Goodson. To prove that current railroad regulations and procedures are not adequate to prevent grade crossing accidents. 2. Question at Issue - How are the engineer and railroad negligent? What could have been done by the engineer and railroad company to prevent the accident? Would more training have invoked a different preventative response from the engineer? Are the current railroad safety regulations sufficient? Are there any warnings on the road before it curves towards the track? If you didn’t know the area would you clearly be able to spot a train? What if a car was stalled on the tracks? Would a train …show more content…
Concepts –General Palmer Railroad was negligent and caused the death of John Goodson. Several factors attribute to negligence including insufficient operating regulations, lack of training for engineers and train crew, inadequate warnings at crossings and obstruction of the right of way view for both drivers and its train engineers. It is stated in the affidavit of the engineer that he did not see the truck until he passed the treeline. The treeline ends a ¼ mile before the grade crossing even though it takes ¾ miles for a train to stop. He admits he felt as if the truck was racing him and his first reaction was to blow the whistle instead of applying the brakes. This particular crossing had an accident 6 years prior so it should have been common sense for the engineer take extra precautions. According to exhibit 5, the Ralston Rd. had a diagnostic review on March 21st, 2006 and was scheduled to have gates installed in July of 2009. The review was about two months before the fatal accident involving John. This proves that Goodson Railroad knew the crossing needed improvement prior to the …show more content…
Implications and Consequences - It takes 3 times the distance of a quarter mile for a train to stop so it is implied that the whistle post at the quarter mile marking is not an effective preventative measure or warning. If the trees had been cleared to provide more visibility prior to the ¼ mile whistle post John would have had a better chance of seeing the train. Extended visibility would have also allowed Lee Thompson to start blowing the whistle and braking sooner. If the crossing had gates a train coming out of a treeline at 60mph at ¼ mile before the crossing wouldn’t be so surprising and John would still be
Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.
As expressed in Southern Cotton Oil “one who authorizes and permits an instrumentality that is peculiarly dangerous in its operation to be used by another on the public highway is liable in damages for injuries to third persons caused by the negligent operation of such instrumentality on the highway by one so authorized by the...
Upon further review of the evidence in the case, it was explained that Gordon fastened Cheyenne into the seat while she was asleep. This statement seems to eliminate any theory of infants negligence immediately since she was not the one to fasten the seat belt, in addition to her age barring recovery for infants negligence. When placing her into the vehicle he noted that the shoulder portion of the strap fell over her neck and head, allowing for a large amount of slack. Gordon’s direct statement indicates that he knew the seat belt was too large for Cheyenne, however he still placed her in the seat. It is unclear whether Gordon placed the strap behind Cheyenne’s back, or if some time during the ride Cheyenne placed the excess length of belt behind her own back. Since she
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
Taylor, George Rogers, and Irene D. Neu. The American Railroad Network, 1861-1890. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1956. Print.
This trend began to ebb with MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., and the ruling by an appellate court that favored MacPherson, the plaintiff. This case, however, was more a result of political expediency than a reasoned verdict based on fact. In this case, the plaintiff argued that his 1911 Baby Buick had a defective wheel that collapsed while traveling at a low rate of speed, hitting a telephone pole, and pinning him under, breaking his wrist and cracking several ribs; however, the facts of the trial revealed that the accident as it was recounted by the plaintiff was a physical impossibility, but due to the increasing pressures to dispense with privity rulings, the court imposed on the defendant the responsibility of inspecting and discarding defective wheels, implying causal negligence even though the plaintiff had driven the vehicle for more than a year in less than perfect road conditions without a mishap. (MacPherson Tort Story; MacPherson v. Buick Motor Company: Simplifying the Facts While Reshaping the Law, Pg.
A police officer, Colin Allcars (Allcars), is suing Harry’s Ammo World (HAW) for his medical expenses, personal injuries, pain and suffering. HAW sold a rifle to Dakota D. West without checking West’s background for felonies or drug use. Federal law prevents the sale of firearms to anyone with a felony or to anyone that uses illegal drugs. Dakota had been convicted of a felony and was also a user of marijuana. Two months after the sale Dakota’s brother took the rifle and took hostages. When the police were trying to subdue and arrest Dakota’s brother he shot and wounded Colin AllCars. Allcars is suing HAW on the grounds of negligence.
While building the Transcontinental Railroad, there were many problems, such as Indian troubles, delays, and construction difficulties. Crossing the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevadas was one of the toug...
In 1900, 4000 miles of railroads crossed over North Carolina in many directions (Trelease 32). The expansion of the railroad system did so much for Nort...
Spearman, Frank H. "The First Transcontinental Railroad." Harper's Monthly Magazine, Volume 109 2011: 711-20. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. .
On December 29, 1876, a train was crossing over a railroad bridge spanning the Ashtabula River when the entire bridge collapsed, sending most of the train into the frigid water below. This disaster would be the deadliest bridge disaster in the United States. Investigators quickly tried to determine why this bridge, after eleven years of service, collapsed. The investigators would ultimately place the blame on the president of the Ashtabula Railroad Company, Amasa Stone. The bridge was constructed with many flaws, both known and unknown. This disaster would lead to people realizing the need for structural standards for bridges and qualified engineers.
When the lights are flashing you are not allowed to go and stay at a complete stop until the train has passed and the lights stopped flashing. If youthink the lights are not working do not cross the tracks until you have a clear view and can clearly see that there are no trains coming. When the barriers are down it is for your ownprotection and you are not allowed to cross through the barriers. Another common thing nearand around railroad crossings are warning signs that let you know what is ahead. There canalso be X’s and letters painted on the road or curb that warn you of the crossing. There arecrossbuck signs that let you know how many tracks there are. The caution is advised will all kinds of vehicles and not just cars. School buses, motorcycles, bicycles, and trucks with hazardous materials all have to follow the same laws and should all take the crossings seriously. Trains also can come at any time and you should always be ready to stop for a train as they can cross at any time day or night. If you so happen to get stuck on the train tracks and you will not be able to get it off the tracks, you need to get out immediately and get off the
On February 26th 1972, Dam 3 of the Buffalo Mining Company a subsidiary of the Pittston Coal Company, failed resulting in a flooding of the Buffalo Creek Hallow. The disaster caused property damage, wrongful death, and psychic impairment. West Virginia prohibited any dam built any dam built over “fifteen feet in height across any stream or watercourse without a prior determination by the state that it is safe” (15). The state’s failure to properly enforce this law gave Pittston the ability to claim the disaster was an act of God; this was supported by President Nixon who referred to this as a natural disaster (187). In his testimony Mr. Spotte, head of the Pittston Coal Group, stated the accident was a natural occurrence beyond the company’s control. However he admitted that this particular dam (3) was not built in the custom of the company other dams lacking a spillway system. This failure to ensure a standard constituted a negligent breach of duty (134-137).
"An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge." Classic Reader. 2009. BlackDog Media, Web. 2 Dec 2009. .
There are four elements in the tort of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, proximate cause and harm or damage that is attributed to the breach of duty. Negligence is the breach of duty to take care, wherein breach is considered on the basis of the standard of care required.