Closing Argument Assignment Thank you your honor. May it please the Court. I would like to take this time to thank the members of our jury for their service. Over the last few days, you have heard an extensive amount of testimony, and have been presented with two main issues for your consideration. The first issue is was the defendant, George Jamerson, negligent is his operation of the Fed-Ex commercial tractor he had permission to operate. The second issue is whether or not the defendant Fed-Ex, entrusted their commercial tractor to George Jamerson, whom acted negligently when he failed to stop with traffic, and caused a multi-car automobile accident which involved the Plaintiff and two other drivers. In this case, the Plaintiff, Louise Smith alleges that the defendant, George Jamerson was negligently operating the Fed-Ex commercial tractor trailer when he failed to stop with traffic and caused a multi-car collision. Although he did not physically hit my client, defendant Jamerson’s failure to safely operate the Fed-Ex truck caused the accident which has permanently an adversely affected my clients life. The judge will instruct you that negligence is defined as “the failure to use reasonable care”. “Reasonable …show more content…
Their testimony has shown that my client has suffered extensive physical and mental injuries as a result of this accident. The auto accident expert also presented testimony which supports the plaintiff’s claim that had Mr. Jamerson not been illegally driving a commercial tractor in the far left lane on the Howard Franklin Bridge, the accident could have been avoided, or at least made a much smaller impact than the accident my client was involved in. The various testimony presented by the experts has shown that my client is in no way at fault for her injuries, and that she has and will continue to suffer permanent injury as a result of both defendant’s
The respondent (driver) is required to take reasonable care when operating his vehicle to ensure the safety of the appellant. The primary judge highlighted that "content of this duty depends on the circumstances of the case". However, the respondent breached his duty of care by taking his eyes off the road, violating s 5B and s 5C of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002. The respondent nevertheless is not considered negligent as outlined in s5B (1) if he could prevent the outcome of a risk that was not
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury. I am here to represent Justin Garcia, to prove the negligence of Jessica Nordeen. The law of negligence says that negligence occurs if an individual does something harmful that a person of ordinary intelligence would not do. In the next few moments,I will prove to the Jury that there was a breach of duty in the case of Garcia v. Nordeen.
Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law.
Carrying from the trial, the first issue arising was whether the primary Judge erred in his consideration of the scope of the respondent’s duty of care. The second was whether the respondent’s failure to give evidence produced a Jones v Dunkel inference, suggesting greater elapsed time between radio adjustment and collision.
At dusk, on the clear evening of Friday, October 5th, 2012, defendant Taylor Hamilton, age 16, was driving his mother’s Lincoln Town Car eastbound on Nash Street in Clearwater when he struck and injured 16-year-old plaintiff Alex Cooper. As Hamilton said in his trial, it was a driver’s worst nightmare. At about 6:45 pm, as Hamilton was approaching the crest of the
The plaintiff Woodson is a resident of the state of New York and purchased a vehicle, an Audi, from the Seaway Dealership in the State of New York. The plaintiff Woodson was injured while in Oklahoma, which was caused by a defect in the car. The plaintiff sued the dealership and the other defendants to recover personal injuries in an Oklahoma State court. All defendants were served under he long-arm statute. The dealership and importer objected to the Oklahoma court’s personal jurisdiction.
On the morning of 03/01/2017, at about 05:40 hours, I was requested to assist Deputy Crosby with an accident he was just in. He advised a deer had run into the roadway and he had struck it. He was located in the 500 block of west US 160. When I arrived Crosby showed me the area the deer made contact with his vehicle. The damage was a small crack to the passenger side bumper, just below the headlight assembly. I photographed the damage and made a KLER report, SUSO case #17-411. Crosby stated he had slowed down but was unable to steer to the rear of the animal due to oncoming traffic. He estimated his speed during time of impact at less than 30 MPH.
Last week, Natalie Wolf spoke to our class. Mrs. Wolf discussed some of her cases in the Delaware Superior Court, the Delaware Supreme Court, the Delaware Industrial Accident Board, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. She is a partner at Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor out of Wilmington, Delaware and successfully received her J.D. from Georgetown University (she told us to go to the best school you can get into- her firm does not accept applicants from Widener University School of Law). She also said she represents persons injured in auto accidents, work accidents and medical accidents (negligence, etc.). When she was just starting out, she represented insurance companies in personal injury and
(1) Whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it;
Wideman’s injury is sufficiently severe under the law as. The controlling case, Jones v. Harris, 35 Md. App. 556, 371 A.2d 1104 (1977), held that the plaintiff’s injury was not severe as he only suffered from humiliation, already had a nervous nature and was not entirely disabling as he was still able to function properly in his daily life. In a similar case, Hamilton v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 502 A. 2d 1057 - Md: Court of Special Appeals 1986, the plaintiff was not able to prove that her injury was severe as she only experienced mild consequences that mostly just hurt her ego. This case held that the plaintiff did not prove that the injury leads her to suffer acute emotional distress that seriously debilitated her everyday life and
It is unfortunate that accidents that result in injuries are a part of life. Further more it is also unfortunate that often the party responsible for said accident do not feel compelled to offer compensation to the party affected. However in spite of this, there is still hope for the injured party thanks to personal injury lawyers. They are tasked with representing their clients who suffered from these events while making sure that their clients receive the compensation that they deserve. Ultimately personal injury lawyers play a big role with regards to safety initiatives by helping those injured, which is something that we all should aspire to do.
The fact is that Allana’s ability to enjoy her lifestyle has been diminished. It is our experience that SW Missouri juries will adequately compensate Allana for her losses, especially considering the clear, aggravated liability, by a defendant who simply did not pay attention to her driving, which is so very sad.
All of a sudden, it is you that now has the importance. It’s you, the jury that has the power to potentially change the life of this man sitting here. You have the power to abide by the justice system. You have the power to do the right thing, right here. And that is to let my client, Joshua Hayden, walk away a free man today. Nothing more, nothing less.
I, Israel Tefera a jury number one in the case state of Texas v. James Broadnax, herby give the final verdict on the aforementioned case before the jury. After deliberating on the case, we the jury have given to this court our opinion on the case. If I may, before reading the verdict go through my thought process, I would appreciate it your honor.