liability of Bernie in the case of Bernie v Murt under sections 2-4 inclusive of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. Case Summary This case involves an injury sustained to the plaintiff, Murt. This injury resulted from a kick executed by the plaintiff’s housemate and defendant in this case, Bernie. The defendant alleges that he wished to demonstrate his tight control of his high kicks, a skill recently acquired through martial arts lessons, and the plaintiff provided his consent for
Ford Motor Co. Summary: Cheryl Hale purchased a 1987 Ford Bronco in 1999. The vehicle had approximately 137K miles. Two years after the purchase, Hale had an accident on the vehicle she purchased that was manufactured in 1986 by Ford Motor Co. (Defendant). Based on the research, Hale was driving with her child, who was in the passenger seat, and with Jesse Branham (Plaintiff). The Plaintiff was in the backseat, and none of them were wearing a seatbelt. The product liability case is from 2010 and
483 (1954) The named plaintiff in this case was Oliver Brown, however, this case involved a total of 13 plaintiffs against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas—first heard by the Kansas District Court. When appealed to the United States Supreme Court in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was presented as five class action lawsuits against discrimination in education. With the support of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), this case was filed to contest
Vian v. Carey Case Brief: Facts: Defendant Mariah Carey is a famous, successful, and wealth entertainer. Plaintiff Joseph Vian who used to be Carey stepfather is suing her. Vian claimed to have orally agreed with Carey to market singing dolls in her likeness. History: A motion of summary was given after the U.S. District court of New York saw the case. Issue: The issue is whether the objective circumstances indicate that the parties intended to form a contract Holding: Under the law of New York
Topic: 'Impossible that I lost diamond ring”, (Selina Lum, 2011) Court Case: Bass Anne Hendricks V Shangri - La Hotel Source: The Straits Times Date: 26th January 2011 Summary of Facts: An American multi-millionaire, Ms Bass, lost her 6.41 carat diamond ring in Shangri-La Hotel during her visit to Singapore. She claimed that she always had the ring with her and it is barely impossible to lose it. Thus, she filed a civil lawsuit against the hotel and sought for compensation. According to
Railroad. She claimed that its employees’ negligence injured her and that she was entitled to damages. The two main issues that arise form this case are: the manner of determination of the duty of care; and the person to whom the party owes a duty of care. Both the trial court and subsequential intermediate apellant court found by jury, verdict for the plaintiff. The ruling that forced the defendant to appeal a third time, but this time to the states highest appellate court: Court of Appeals of New
Facts: Plaintiff Hawaii-pacific Apparel Group, Inc. (“HP”) is an apparel merchandiser. Defendants are Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC and National League Football Properties, Inc. (“NFLP”) which is the merchandising and licensing arm of the National Football League. In 1984, Browns players and fans started to refer to the team’s fans as the “Dawg Pound”. In 1986, HP began to manufacture some non-football-related apparel with the DAWG POUND phrase. In 1994, HP failed to register the mark with
Summary Knight V United Land association, outlines a court case which originated with a complaint filed on November 23rd 1880 alleging that the plaintiff, Thomas Knight was the lawful owner of premises in the city of San Francisco located by Barry channel,(seventh, and eighth street )also known as block #40. From the plaintiff’s perspective he was entitled to the possession of the land, and had been wrongfully dispossessed of his property by the defendant who continued to hold such unlawful possession
persons. The client can successfully claim for negligence if duty or duty of care was owed to the plaintiff, duty of care was breached, the plaintiff suffered a loss or damage and there must be a relationship of casual nature between the defendant’s breach in duty of care and the plaintiff’s suffering of loss or damage. The auditor was held legally liable by the court due to negligence with reference to the case as in Pacific Acceptance (1970) 90 v WN (NSW) 29, auditors must take obligation and due care
this issue. Therefore we must look to common law to try to predict what the court will decide in our particular issue. Generally Massachusetts favors the enforcement of waivers as long as there an absence of fraud, but will not favor the release in cases of gross negligence. Based on the facts there does not seem this issue does not seem to involve gross negligence and therefore the waiver will be enforceable. Statement of Facts Recently, Ms. Baker’s ten-year-old son, Tim, attended an overnight