"The Court in Bricker v. Snook, (1989) Ohio App. LEXIS 1076 stated “It is the universally accepted rule that an employer is liable for personal injuries or the death of another person, or injury to another person's property caused by his employee's negligence, misconduct, misfeasance, or wrongful, improper, or unlawful acts, when done within the scope of his authority, whether the authority is express or implied, or inferred from the general course of business…
3. The court in this case rejected the negligent hiring claim because of previous case law. In the Ponticas case of 1983, the court defined negligent hiring as, “predicated on the negligence of an employer in placing a person with knowing propensities, or propensities which should have been discovered by reasonable investigation, in an employment position in which, because of the circumstances of the employment, it should have been foreseeable that the hired individual posed a threat of injury to others” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457). “Because of this definition under Ponticas, Honeywell argued that it should not be held liable for negligent hiring because, unlike providing a dangerous resident manager with a passkey, Landin’s employment did not enable him to commit the act of violence against Nesser” (McAdams, 2007, pg. 457).…
c. Negligence both failing to instruct employees how to properly serve hot coffee and for failing to warn business invitees of the danger of handling coffee at the the temperature Burger King coffee was served.…
3.) Could the backhoe operator who punctured the pipeline also be charged with a crime in this situation? Explain The backhoe operator can not be charged with a crime in this case even though his mistake is what lead to the accident occurring. Because the Hanousek was the supervisor and “could have prevented” the accident from occurring the law lays the responsibility solely on him.…
Alabama recognizes two theories of strict liability, which are ultra-hazardous or abnormally dangerous activities, and unreasonably dangerous products. Ultra-hazardous itself and the risk of harm it creates to those in the vicinity. The basis for liability is that one who for his own purposes creates an abnormal risk of harm to his neighbors must be responsible for relieving that harm when in fact it does occur. Unreasonably dangerous products are unreasonable when it is foreseeable, and the manufacturer’s ability or unreasonable danger is the measure of its duty in the design of its product. A manufacture’s failure to achieve its full potential in the design unreasonable danger forms the basis for it strict liability in tort. In the following case Dickinson v. City of Huntsville, 822 So. 2d 411, 417 (Ala. 2001) is an example of the ultra-hazardous strict liability.…
4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points)…
* Jones L Introduction to Business Law 1st, 2011, C11 the Tort Law of Negligence. P342…
Explain the general differences between intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability. Additionally, explain the elements of intentional torts and negligence and provide working examples to illustrate each.…
4. According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points)…
Analysis: Samantha is not able to prove that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous substance on the floor; therefore, the grocery store was not negligent in its duty to the customer and cannot be held liable for Samantha’s injuries.…
Negligence is defined as an unintentional tort and occurs when someone is injured because of the failure of someone else. Duty of care is the obligation by an individual to keep foreseeable harm from others. Certain actions can be tolerated and some cannot; which simply means that some actions are right and some actions are wrong. (Fundamentals of Business Law, pg. 80) In this case John Davis was at the exit while patrons left the art show. Unexpectedly Mr. Davis spun around colliding with Ms. Esposito. Ms Esposito, an 80 year old woman, fell to the ground because of the collision with John Davis. The fall to the ground fractured Ms Esposito’s hip and resulted in replacement hip surgery for her. The law recognizes the duty on the part of the employer to keep the flow of the pedestrians unobstructed. The burden imposed upon John Davis to keep a proper lookout in the access area to a building is easy to show. Whereas, showing the likelihood of serious injury when a patron is knocked to the ground is much harder to prove. The burden of such a precaution is reasonable in order to protect customers or pedestrians in their use of the access areas to a building." AN employee is an extension of the employer and is under the same obligations.…
I write this letter to completely reassure you that we are taking the concerns you brought up with the utmost seriousness that they deserve. As a matter of fact, we have investigated the matter the last couple of days to ascertain the facts and events of what happened in Ms. Paulson’s Computer Technology Class on Monday during the third period. There were 27 students present that day alongside Ms. Paulson, and we have conducted interviews with some of them individually in order to get to the bottom of this issue. While it is certain that it was one of the students who momentarily put the pictures in question on the projector, it is also without a doubt our goal to never have to expose our students to any such material; and the adults in our staff certainly are expected to uphold their responsibility of keeping a safe environment for every child under our care, be it from harm of a physical or mental nature.…
The owner set up the requirement that her employees would check the aisles every hour. Trina did attempt to exercise reasonable care. Subsequently, the length of time is considered when looking at the dangerous condition. This is to say, the length of time the condition had been there. Here, the spill happened between 10 am and 11:30am, when the cashier had checked the aisle at 10 to the time of the accident at 11:30. This indicates that the spill had not been there very long, if it was there at all. The cashier stated that the aisle had no leaks, water displays, or water guns anywhere near it, so Trina took ordinary care with her hour inspection instruction. Additionally, the water could not have been there long under the circumstances because there was no water around the area that would make the owner or cashier aware of the fact that water could be on the aisle. Instead, it would be very unlikely water would be on the floor on that aisle, so the length of time here was more reasonable. Had there been water displays, the cashier and owner should have checked the aisles more frequently. In Owens v. Coffee Corner the court found that the owner was liable for coffee that had “just spilled” because it was reasonable foreseeable that coffee-shop customers would spill coffee. However in a camera store where someone “just spilled” soda they were not liable because no refreshments were available and it was unlikely someone would spill. Similarly here, Trina owns a toy store that does not sell refreshments, and spills like this have never happened before. Thus, she is likely not negligent for the spill because the time frame here was not long under the…
John Stokely is responsible for injuring the motorcyclist while driving a vehicle from AAA Auto Dealers. Employers are vicariously liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. In the respondeat superior doctrine, in most cases, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of employment. John Stokely used the company’s vehicle for personal reasons, regardless of what they were, and negligently collided into and injured someone on a motorcycle. John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. Not only did he use the company’s car for personal reasons, his boss accompanied him on the visit to a family member’s house for dinner. The boss was excusing John Stokely’s behavior, allowing him to use company property for a different purpose other than what it was intended for. John Stokely’s boss accompanied him to his cousin’s house so it can be argued that John Stokely had “permission” to do what he wanted. The boss will be held responsible by the owner(s) of AAA Auto Dealers as well by allowing John Stokely to act outside of his job description.…
Facts: The plaintiff, Soldano attempted to contact the police from a phone at the Happy Jacks Saloon after receiving a threat. The defendant, Happy Jacks and the bartender did not allow the plaintiff to use the phone. The defendant is being charged with negligence in the death of the father of the plaintiff. The defendant contends that the request of its employee to call the police is a request to do something. Citing Restatement Second of Torts section 314, The fact the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another aide or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action. The lower court found that the defendant was not responsible for action in the death of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff appealed and the appeals court sided with the plaintiff and allowed for the case to go to trial.…