|← Endangered Species Act||Active, Voluntary Euthanasia →|
In the case of Morristown Associates vs. GrantOil Company, there was involved an underground tank (UST), which was installed in a building and was causing some leakage. The plaintiff who owned the property brought up the case against the oil company in 2006. He stated that between the years 1988 to 2003, the oil company delivered heating oil, it was alleged that they needed to be aware of its leakage. The defendant argued that the plaintiff should have noted this by at latest 1999. In the same year, another UST pipe was found to be leaking. He argued that his complaint was barred by a six-year general statute of limitations against claims on damaged property, N.J.S.A 2A:14-1.
The court upheld its decision against the previous cases of Pitney and Mason, no time bound for the Spill Act. The explanation was due to Manson, who was unpublished, so not binding. Pitney Bowes was involved in a statute of response. Statue of response is applied despite the time of discovery, while that of limitation could be relaxed with a time of knowledge. The court in its conclusion stated that the plaintiff should have filed a suit by the year 2005 upon discovery of the other UST leaking pipes.
Fowler v. Crawford, 534 F.3d 93. A prisoner demanded the prison to provide a sweat lodge for him to be able to practice his religion doctrine at a minimum of 17 times per year. The court ruled that the prison was in the process of accommodating the prisoners’ request to access the outside. He stated that the prison violated his rights in RLUIPA. The court said that the prisoner was being accommodated in the interest of the state and that of his faith. The prison would not be able to provide further assistance since the state had done its best.
Annemarie Brown vs. Nutter, McClennan & Fish & another. The plaintiff stated that the defendant inflicted emotional pain on her. The claim by the plaintiff was not in the line of duty or, in furtherance of her duty. She claimed that the defendant forced her to forge his wife’s signature. This caused her pain. The attorney said that the action taken by Brown was not in the action of business or in the furtherance of her employment status. Thus, it could not be compensated on that ground.
Miodrag Beljakovic v. Bishop Longin FR Pedrag Mlcic. The plaintiff says that there was defamation caused to him in 2000 by the defendant. The judge on his view stated that the case was restricted by the whole of the controversy doctrine. The case review was impossible due to the parties were not able to provide sufficient claims to the pleading. The judge was not provided with the rightful document for him to understand whether the plaintiff’s claims were justified the speculation of the controversy doctrine was applied.
Hodges v. Gibson Products co. Hodges v. Gibson Products Co. This case explains the elements in a malicious claim. The plaintiff was accused of theft. While his partner was not accused and was set free. An internal audit was performed, and it showed that Hodges's partner was the one who embezzled the fund. The plaintiff then dropped the charges and the defendant sued the company, which had acted maliciously together with his partner. The court ruled that they had acted in improper motive, hence, they had to compensate the defendant.
In Ward v. Borum Healthcare, a woman aged 91 visited a nursing home. During the visit, her wheelchair fell. The accusation was said to be due to the negligence in the home. She suffered from a broken arm. In a fortnight’s time, she willingly decided not to undertake her daily treatment. Consequently, this resulted in her death. A doctor said that the injuries made her depressed. This resulted in her not going for dialysis, resulting in her death. The court stated that the evidence presented to the court was too speculative to take action against the home. This resulted in the defendant winning the case.
Maria Cornelius v. Oklahoma Custom Courier, LLC on auto negligence theories claiming. The plaintiff who was aged 40 sued the company, where the driver was employed. The company alleged that the plaintiff could not sue the company for the drivers’ actions were completely not in line with the company’s policy. The driver acted in his own action, hence, the company could not suffer the loss. Furthermore, the driver was not on duty during the time of the accident.
Hunt v. Urge, 2012 BCSC 1704. The plaintiff alleged that he suffered pain as a result of an accident in which he was involved. The court later found out that the Hunt was truthful in pain. However, there was no clear connection between his health and accident. Several factors were brought out. He was not in good terms with the son. He was undergoing a marriage crisis and the loss of his job. Those factors could have resulted in his illness. The court upheld the defendant in that the cause of the pain he felt was not solely due to the accident he was involved in.
Cold Springs Farm Development, Inc. V. Rene ball. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the mill house Cellar Restaurant. They paid $1000 deposit for them to be allocated the sale. They failed to complete the price of alleging heating issues. The plaintiff filed a suit to recover their initial cost money and the attorneys’ fee. The court ruled that since there was a breach of contract by the plaintiff of not completing the purchase, then they would not win the case.
Roy Mcgregor v. the United States of America. The two issued filed to the state were dismissed on various basis. The first one was dismissed on the basis of time without a proper reason. The issue was medical malpractice, which required to be filed within 120 days. The second suit filed was dismissed on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. The case favored the state on the basis of time validity.
Teresa Thomas and William Thomas V. Toys” R” US. Plaintiff Teresa filed a case against the shopping mall when she fell down while shopping. They instituted damages against damages suffered. A jury gave the conclusion that the fall was a result of her negligence, as well as that of the defendant. She was allowed to have 75% of the compensation since the fall was instituted by 25% of the negligence as well.
Dian GF vs. Damco logistic. The plaintiff in the case accused the defendant over goods lost. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the goods were lost to a third party. The driver has lobbed off the goods on transit. The defendant said that the plaintiff had signed with the transporting company was in full knowledge of the company’s rules. The goods transported were at their own risk. They were obliged to insure their goods, which they failed to insure. The defendant was not liable for their loss.
In Jewell McFatridge vs. Harlem Globe Trotters. The plaintiff Mcfatridge alleged that one of the players negligently threw the ball towards her. The court ruled that the player was acting in the course of his employment and that the plaintiff had due duty to keep herself safe. This was a situation in which the circumstance was unforeseeable. The court ruled in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff was not to be compensated for damages caused.
In the case of Scott v. Donkel, The plaintiff was a minor by the name Danielle Scott who was bitten by a dog which was in the compound of one William J. Donkel III. The owner has leased the property to William Beasley. The dog belonged to Beasley’s roommate and was kept in a fenced area. The dog, at the time of incidence, was roaming freely. The plaintiff argued that the landlord should have inspected his property and nullified the lease of Beasley for holding a dangerous dog on his premises. The court ruled in favor of the defendant since the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that the defendant knew about the dog or its previous attack on people.
The case of John Orrin Jewett & another vs. frank Dow & others 333 mass. 187. The plaintiff submitted a case in which he was seeking compensation to recover the damage caused. The plaintiff dove into the swimming pool and sustained injuries. The court ruled that the plaintiff dove into the shallow end of the pool. Its depth was clearly labeled by the defendant. This was a contributed negligence on his part, and it was obvious to any other person that if one dove into the pool, he would cause harm to himself. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.
In the case of comparative negligence, a plaintiff is entitled to recover, if the negligence in the action was caused by both parties, but the plaintiff contribution was less than 50%. In the case of HORN v. FADAL MACHINING CENTERS LLC, the ruling given was that the defendant’s machine was clearly labeled that during its use in automatic mode, the doors needed to be closed. The tools used at the time of the accident were defective and were not from the manufacturer of the machine. The operating speed that was being used was way above the recommended 150 rpm.
Collis v. Topper’s Salon in this case, the plaintiff Torina Collis said that she was injured during a massage performed to her by Tina Casey. She was a licensed therapist working for Topper’s salon the defendant. The plaintiff allergies that the defendant performed the therapy without informing her of the associated risks involved. In addition to that, she did not fill out any information subjecting her to state her medical history. Injuries inflicted were on the head, neck and the upper back. This kind of case required that there should be an expert to prove negligence. There was the requirement of an expert, but Ms. Collis failed to prove one. The court could not rule in her favor since her witnesses were no expert to understand the care that was supposed to be exercised by a therapist. A layman’s common knowledge would not be sufficient to prove negligence. Furthermore, the harm inflicted in her could not be stated by merely looking at her. The pain would have occurred due to activities done by her before the massage. That was what the judge ruled. The defendant was set free.
In the case of Foust IBEW v. 572 F.2d 710 (10th Cir. 1978) the union was found to have violated its rights. This was due to them time-lapse and, the union ignoring its grievances of the people it was representing. The judge did not listen to their case since it was presented late. Though the union argued that its agent was on vacation, the court ruled that it was an irresponsible act. This could be done intentionally for fear of them not believing in the case presented by its employees. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.
In conclusion, the cases studied above show that the law is very clear on some essentials such as time. Case one is viable to the jury, no matter how truthful it is. It can be disputed on the basis of time. The court also looks at how the two parties involved contributed to the cause of the incident/accident. The decision is compensated on the percentage of contribution to the negligence of either party involved.
There is also compensation to the party that suffers defamation; the time spent in the court sessions is also compensated. The attorney is also paid for the representation and other damages are also compensated.