Gatzke worked at Walgreen Company as a district manager. He was called to temporarily relocate to Duluth, Minnesota to supervise the opening and preliminary operations of a Walgreen-owned restaurant. The company was paying for Gatzke to live at an Edgewater Motel, where he set up a temporary workspace. Gatzke and some employees had dinner at the new restaurant and then continued their night to a bar for several drinks while discussing the restaurant. Gatzke went back to his room at the Edgewater motel and began to fill out an expense report. The hotel was then severally damaged in a fire that started in his room, originally a cigarette in the trash can next to Gatzke’s make shift desk. The report stated that this was an accidental fire, and Gatzke got out unharmed. As a result of this fire, the motel sued Walgreen …show more content…
The specialist cannot follow up for two principals in the same exchange unless there is full disclosure and the principals consent to the game plan. Gatzke was careless in unintentionally dropping a lit cigarette in the garbage can and beginning the fire, and therefore is subject to Edgewood Motel for the damages to the motel. Since Gatzke did not have a set work schedule, he worked at his own pace and at any time of the day, his exercises are dependably inside the extent of job. Walgreen Company ought to be held vicariously liable for the fire damages to the motel, since Gatzke’s activities to some extent promoted Walgreen’s interests and smoking cigarettes is just a minor deviation from the worker’s business related exercises. Walgreen is required to reimburse Gatzke for his everyday costs while staying at the Edgewood Motel and to indemnify him for his liabilities, assuming any, to the Edgewood for his carelessness in bringing on the
Summary of Source The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities.
1. In this case, Missy sustained an injury after administration of a hot pack even though she was being monitored by Jim (PTA). Ron (PT) was responsible for the duties of Jim. Therefore, both Jim and Ron failed to care for Missy that comply with the legal standard of care and are most likely liable for professional negligence.
1. Choose Life Ill., Inc. v. White, 547 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2008). a. Facts: 25,000 signatures were collected from residents interested in purchasing a “Choose Life” specialty plate. The proposal for this plate was denied. CLI argued that failure to allow these specialty plates constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
Lisa Hetherington LGST 495 7980 Professor Hansen 17 April 2016 Project 3: Response to Action Introduction This case was brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Jim Jones, who alleges that the Defendants, Grab-n-Go, Inc. (“the store”) and by proxy, its owner, Mr. John Smith, did negligently leave some amount of coffee creamer on the floor near the coffee bar, which he stepped on, slipped and fell, but for causing the injuries he sustained that day. The defendants, through their attorneys, move to DISMISS the counts brought against them pursuant to Md. Rules 2-322(b)(2), Failure to State a Claim. The plaintiff, Mr. Jones, alleges one cause of action: Negligence (Count I), Maintaining Negligent Conditions. He stated in his claim that the store employees failed to clean up a mess of coffee creamer, which was part of their duty of care to him as an invitee on the premises, and upon which he slipped.
The case was implied a Magistrate Judge, whose brief discoveries and recommendation completed up, and "the Pledge does not slight the Establishment Clause. " The District Court grasped that proposition and released the protestation on July 21, 2000. The Court of Appeals turned around and issued three separate choices talking about the benefits and Newdow 's standing. As it would see it, the offers court consistently held that Newdow has remaining as a watchman to challenge a practice that meddles with his qualification to facilitate the religious direction of his daughter. That holding managed Newdow 's remaining to challenge not only the game plan of the school locale, where his young lady still is enrolled, moreover the 1954 Act of
Approximately four months later, the decedent began to complain of severe dizziness and nausea. The decedent died shortly thereafter. Plaintiff alleges negligence and gross negligence claims against Highland Threads, Inc. (hereinafter “Highland Threads”). Plaintiff alleges that Highland Threads supplied the chair to Mr. Waggoner and that Highland Threads should have been aware of issues with the chair it supplied for the security
In the case of Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, the respondent brought an antitrust action against Abbott Laboratories claiming that they had violated the Robinson-Patman Act. The pharmaceutical manufacturers had sold drugs to not-for-profit hospitals at lower prices then to the commercial pharmacies (Showalter, pg 452). The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, which was an amendment to the Clayton Antitrust Act (Elfand, n.d.), had made it unlawful to discriminate by placing a pricing difference between buyers of similar goods, when “the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition” (Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists, 1976). As the petitioners, Abbott Laboratories claimed that the price
Verizon agreed that they would cut some requirements from the workers’ mandatory overtime. The new rules stated that workers had to work 7.5 hours of overtime per week. The maximum hours of overtime they could work was 10 hours. They also will pay bilingual workers, that have to do jobs that require them being fluent in another language more than the average worker.
Brad’s house had an explosion leading to a fire that caused damages to his house and his neighbour, Tom’s. Tom and Brad are making claims that both have a legal basis. Tom chooses to hold Brad and Katherine, the firefighter, liable for damages. Meanwhile, Brad, who claims that there is no responsibility of his for the fire, believes that someone must compensate him for his loss as well as Tom’s. Brad is making his legal claims against Patrick and his employer, A-1 Furnaces Limited, and the City.
On November 10, 1978, Dan White voluntarily left his position on the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors as a police and firefighter. This was because the annual salary was not enough to provide for White's family. A couple of weeks later, on November 27th, the press conference was about to announce White's replacement when he entered though a window avoiding the metal detector and shot Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk who was the member of the Board. This became known as "The Twinkie Defense". White's legal team pronounced that White was suffering untreated depression and that decreased his capacity to know right from wrong.
If the company would have spent a little more to make good the psychological loss of the people, the situation would not have been hiked to this great an extent. Q4. Do you agree with Feinberg’s decision rule? His expectation is that there be a signature physical injury is consistent with tort law. Does that affect your answer?
A case of Luwana Marts involved a teenage girl named Maggie. In the article written by Boo (2006) Luwana says, Maggie had contracted hepatitis B and did not receive treatment while pregnant, because she was attending to her sick mother. During her pregnancy, she suffered from lack of nutrition and depression. Due to Maggie not being treated for hepatitis B, she passed it on to her baby girl Maia.
Proximate cause- Because of the tortfeasor lack of diligence, he is responsible for any medical expenses of Penelope, or any damages thats occurred for the proximate cause. If the damages caused any future damages from the original incident that are foressable then dick is responsible if proven in court. Actual Harm: Dick is responsible for the damages of the
Health Care Law: Tort Case Study Carolann Stanek University of Mary Health Care Law: Tort Case Study A sample case study reviewed substandard care that was delivered to Ms. Gardner after having sustained an accident and brought to Bay Hospital for treatment. Dr. Dick, a second-year pediatric resident, was on that day in the ED and provided care for Ms. Gadner. Dr. Moon, is the chief of staff and oversees the credentialing of all physicians at Bay Hospital.
time for which the person is employed; (7) the method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; (8) whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the employer; (9) whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of master and servant; and (10) whether the principal is or is not in business. A master is in many instances liable, under the theory of respondeat superior, for the torts of his servant, but not for those of an independent contractor.” Additionally, the case regarding Westermann versus Bermisa M.D. was a popular case regarding a physician that had seen a patient for a chronic cough and chest pain, which they ran a chest x-ray and gave the patient a prescription for cough medicine to negligent