In the tort law case of Wardak v Froom, Dean Wardak an 18 year old boy became a quadriplegic when he drove impaired into a fire hydrant and tree. He had previously attended his friend Graeme Frooms 19th birthday party. This party was hosted in the home of the Frooms, where his parents supervised the guests, it should be noted that no guests were served alcohol by the hosts it was BYOB. The plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. Wardak argue that the Frooms owed a duty of care to their son, and should be held responsible for the injuries that Dean now suffers. The defendants relied on the case Childs v Desormeaux in proving their social host liability.
Dean Wardak was one of the first guests, he walked to the party from his house. The defendant's supervised the party while Dean and other guests played Beer Pong. Party guest as well as Graeme witnessed Deans impairment and his consumption of alcohol. One party guest said Dean was the most drunk, and noted that there were also
…show more content…
Froom returned back to the basement, and noticed Dean was no longer in the residence. He and Graeme went looking for Dean. They walked to his house, he was not there and they notified his father who also began looking for his son. Dean was only driving for a short period of time prior to crashing his vehicle. He collided with a fire hydrant and a tree. A blood draw performed at the hospital determined Dean's blood alcohol level was .274 which is three times the legal limit. Dean was rendered a quadriplegic and suffered cognitive impairments as well.
The defendants argued that they met the “applicable standard of care”. They submitted that by not serving guests alcohol they did not owe a duty of care. They relied on the case Childs v Desormeaux in which the SCC concluded the meaning of social host liability. In Childs v Desormeaux the issue regarded whether or not social hosts owed a duty of care to third party guests when alcohol is
On December 7, 2009, Kenneth Dascoli was at the home of his ex-wife with his current girlfirend, his ex-wife’s friend, and Dascoli’s half-brother. Dascoli and his half-brother consumed a significant amount of alcohol when a verbal argument developed. The argument escalated and Dascoli’s brother
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
The Case of R.V Machekequonabe Machekequonabe is charged with shooting and killing his foster father. The difficulty of this case revolves around the fact that his particular pagan Indian tribe believed in the existence of evil spirit wendigos which assume human form and pose a threat to their community. On one hand, there are rules against killing other humans, and on the other, Indian common law says that it is acceptable to kill wendigos (which the defendant believed he was doing). This essay will show how this conflict and ruling can be explained completely by Dworkin's theory of law and judicial reasoning.
In this case entitled Gulash v. Stylarama there was a contract entered regarding the construction of pools. The pool was built and constructed but after a period of time the pool began to tilt, in which that’s when Gulash decided to sue Stylarama. The suit was that Stylarama violated provisions of article 2 of the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). Due to the fact the cost of the materials and the labor were not written out in detail but instead of in a lump sum it would make it hard to come up with a sum for the exact cost of the damages. Furthermore, since this is a contract with a mix of goods and services, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code would not apply the services only to the goods but the common law would to the services. And
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
After a regular customer mixed up the cellar door to be the gentlemen’s toilets and after opening it fell down the concrete steps to his death.The man stayed undiscovered to anyone as the owner was away to attend a programme on wellbeing and security. The prosecution contended that the owner of the pub was culpable, notwithstanding him not being available at the time of the occurrence, as he had not put enough cautioning signs nor he did lock the cellar door. The court held that the defendant could have made obliged measures to diminish the crossing of customers through the basement door, which was just a step from the ladies’ restrooms. This was a fair instance of gross negligence manslaughter as there had been few incidents of clients being confused between the cellar door and the toilet door. Moreover, when the defendant had begun the business in 2009, he was mindful that the cellar door could be risky for customers coming to the
Proximate Cause: The shoulder and rotator cuff injuries were within the scope of the risks that made us determine that the dropping of Vicky’s body was a breach. Because Dwayne dropped Vicky, Dwayne’s dropping of Vicky’s body proximately caused the injuries sustained. Felix’s carrying of the body was a cause in fact but not the proximate cause of the injuries Vicky
Despite the efforts of lawyers and judges to eliminate racial discrimination in the courts, does racial bias play a part in today’s jury selection? Positive steps have been taken in past court cases to ensure fair and unbiased juries. Unfortunately, a popular strategy among lawyers is to incorporate racial bias without directing attention to their actions. They are taught to look for the unseen and to notice the unnoticed. The Supreme Court in its precedent setting decision on the case of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), is the first step to limiting racial discrimination in the court room. The process of selecting jurors begins with prospective jurors being brought into the courtroom, then separating them into smaller groups to be seated in the jury box. The judge and or attorneys ask questions with intent to determine if any juror is biased or cannot deal with the issues fairly. The question process is referred to as voir dire, a French word meaning, “to see to speak”. During voir dire, attorneys have the right to excuse a juror in peremptory challenges. Peremptory challenges are based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, personal knowledge of the facts, or the attorney believing he/she might not be impartial. In the case of Batson v. Kentucky, James Batson, a black man, was indicted for second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the selection of the jury the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike out all of the four black potential jurors, leaving an all white jury. Batson’s attorney moved to discharge the venire, the list from which jurors may be selected, on the grounds that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges violated his client’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have a jury derived from a “cross-section of the community”(People v. Wheeler, 583 P.3d 748 [Calif. 1978]). The circuit court ruled in favor of the prosecutor and convicted Batson on both counts. This case went through the courts and finalized in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
During my time in the ward, I recently had a patient with alcohol dependency in my care. My patient, Mr Grey was a 51 year old male patient who was admitted with a fractured neck of femur and consistent hypertension. Mr Grey required a vast amount of medical treatment for his injuries. As well as Mr Grey’s physiological problems he also had poor mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. We later discovered my patient had some social issues and that he was homeless.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Medical malpractice cases are difficult for the families who have lost their loved one or have suffered from severe injuries. No one truly wins in complicated court hearings that consist of a team of litigation attorneys for both the defendant and plaintiff(s). During the trial, evidence supporting malpractice allegations have to be presented so that the court can make a decision if the physician was negligent resulting in malpractice, or if the injury was unavoidable due to the circumstances. In these types of tort cases, the physician is usually a defendant on trial trying to prove that he or she is innocent of the medical error, delay of treatment or procedure that caused the injury. The perfect example of being at fault for medical malpractice as a result of delaying a procedure is the case of Waverly family versus John Hopkins Health System Corporation. The victims were not compensated enough for the loss of their child’s normal life. Pozgar (2012) explained….
In the case of Norton vs Argonaut Insurance Company there are many factors which impacted the court’s ruling as to the parties who were responsible resultant wrongful death of the infant Robyn Bernice Norton. The nurses, doctors(independent contractors) and the the hospital though not formally charged
A practical example of this is demonstrated in the case of R v Lowe. Whereby the parents failed to call the doctor. when their child fell ill. The special relationship between the child and the father made the father criminally liable where he failed to act. under his duty of care.