Memorandum of Law 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. Issue: Under Kentucky tort law, does intentional infliction of emotional distress occur when a person suffers severe insomnia and anxiety as a result of 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? Brief Answer: No. Under Kentucky tort law, no recovery can be had for personal injury resulting from fright occasioned by negligence of another, where there is no immediate personal injury, trespass to real estate, or some contract relation. Furthermore, a cause of action will not lie in favor of a woman for pain and suffering resulting solely from fright, unaccompanied by physical injury, superinduced by one who without seeing her or knowing of her presence, and without trespassing on her premises, assaulted a third person. Also, the long-standing rule in this jurisdiction is that in negligence cases there can be no recovery for fright, shock, or mental anguish which is unaccompanied by physical contact or injury. Statement of Facts: On April 14, Ida Carry was in her front yard, across the street from Roosevelt Elementary School, and children were playing in the playground. She heard the crossing guard¡¦s whistle blow and tires squealing. ... ... middle of paper ... ...ted to her. Although she was undeniably injured and her suffering is provable, she cannot establish that she was injured directly by Bob Barton¡¦s actions. The relevant case law for this situation comes from several cases from Kentucky: 761 S.W.2d 625, 597 S.W.2d 141, 147 S.W. 742, 112 S.W. 600, and 77 S.W. 361 among others. These cases establish the law as defined by the courts that without physical contact a claim for negligence cannot be reputable. Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Facts: A minor and his mother filed suit for damages against Tri-County Orthopedic physicians for false diagnose and filling a child abuse reports. The Michigan Court of Appeals rule that child abuse reporting statue provides immunity to persons who file the child abuse was report in good faith even if the reports were a negligent diagnosis which was cause of the child bone fractures. The court also appealed that damage of shame and humiliation was not recoverable to Michigan statute. Immunity from liability did not extend for damages of malpractice which has been the result from the failure to diagnose the child disease.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
First I would like to address the definition of Battered Woman Syndrome. Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) is a condition often used by the defense in cases like this one to relieve the defendant of some or
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
Explain the issue or dilemma using information from the readings in the book and other sources.
Issue: Did the State of Illinois violate the Equal Protection Clause when it denied Peter Stanley a hearing on his fitness to keep his children?
The court findings have finally come to a conclusion, to confirm regard to defendants Alexander, McCarthy, Caruso, and Correctional Medical Services Inc. because the Plantiff has poorly provided evidence specifying suspicious indifference. However, the court overturned the district court’s granting of summary judgment to Heebsh and Pausits, two defendants who return to custody for further actions because of sufficient evidence of deliberate indifference to survive summary judgment.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
There are numerous facts about this case that will be legally significant. The facts about the accident would include:
Reasoning: The Court held that Mr. Faretta has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel. However, he may not complain later that he received inadequate assistance of and to legal counsel.
On December 20, 2011 at approximately 12:17 p.m., Elina Burdin was driving her motor vehicle South on Grove Street overpass in Bridgewater, NJ. At this time, Ms. Burdin was going around a u-turn roundabout when she gradually slowed her vehicle down due to traffic in front of her. While slowing down almost to a stop Ms. Burdin’s vehicle was struck from behind by a motor vehicle owned and operated by defendant William M. Koszkulics at a high rate of speed. The force of this impact knocked Ms. Burdin’s vehicle forward jarring her body forwards and back.
Officer Cox informed me, upon his arrival there was a two-month-old child, Jack Newbury, had become unresponsive and was being further transported by EMS to the hospital in Muskogee. Officer Taylor Mills followed EMS to the hospital. The residence where this incident occurred is a home daycare, approved and certified by the Department of Human Services.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
I am filing this complaint on behalf of my husband and myself. Not due to the decision of the sitting judge, which we honor and will adhere to, but due to the bias and lack of ethics we experienced in Judge Hellenger’s courtroom.
“Car accidents are the leading cause of death for children ages 1-12 years old” (Nienstedt 140). The disturbing fact is many of these unfortunate accidents could have been prevented with the use of proper child restraints. Many of motor vehicle deaths involving child are because a child safety seat was not used or not properly installed. In the United States there are some crucial steps that must be taken in order to reduce the number of future death due to caregiver negligence. Child safety seat law should be made of a national level in order to eliminate any gaps in the current state-to-state child safety seats laws. Theses law need to be made to reflect