Facts: The P (Kendra Knight) was participating in a coed touch football game, while playing the D (Michael Jewett) broke the plaintiff's finger by knocking her over and stepped on her finger during an informal touch football game. Where Knight had to get a number of four surgeries and she lost her finger. According to the D claim he was only trying intercept a pass and when he came down he stepped on her hand. He did not mean to hurt or injured Knight. The P says otherwise she says Jewett came behind and knocked her down. She put her arms out to break the fall and Jewett ran over her, stepping on her hand. The P is suing the D for negligence and assault and battery. Knight appealed the ruling of the decision. Procedure: It was first …show more content…
The defendant owe a duty of care to the plaintiff but knowingly and still encounter the risk of injury by playing the game. The plaintiff still engaged in the game knowing what the rules were. Reasoning: The court rule in favor of the Defendant because the plaintiff verbally agrees to play touch football which is consented to the contact. Also Knight voluntarily participated giving her full consent. Meaning she was up for a quick game of touch football. Since the Defendant did not breach a legal duty of care owed to plaintiff when he engaged in the conduct that injured her and, therefore, her action was barred by the primary assumption of the risk doctrine. No, breach was made during the game of touch football that could have change the ruling of the outcome. Dissent: They were two judges who dissented. Judges Mosk, J. and Panelli, J. Said that they were we to eliminate the doctrine of assumption of risk, we would put an end to the doctrinal confusion that now surrounds apportionment of fault in such cases. Assumption of risk now stands for so many different legal concepts that it’s utility has diminished. The assumption of risk has different legal concepts to it and it reduces the right of the plaintiff if the defendant can demonstrate the plaintiff voluntarily know the
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
Separate Opinions: in the dissenting opinion, the minority argued that the ruling of the majority opens up a Pandora’s Box. Arguing that the ruling would encourage offenders to flee and, consequently, put more innocent bystanders at risk. In addition to this separate opinion by the dissent, several other key arguments by the dissent are bulleted
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Does the first amendment overrule the Texas law that forbids the desecration of a venerated object under these circumstances?
McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P. was a personal injury case filed on March 17, 1998, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant club was vicariously liable for their employee’s actions that caused the plaintiff’s injury. The injury in question occurred in Peoria, Illinois during an IHL game on December 15, 1990 between the Peoria Rivermen and the Milwaukee Admirals. While the St. Louis Hockey Club technically wasn’t playing in the game, they can be held liable for the injury, as the Peoria Rivermen are a subsidiary of the club. During the third period of said game, the defendant, Stephen McKichan, a goalie for the Admirals, was both injured and rend unconscious by a body-check from a Peoria player. This body-check occurred after play was stopped due to the hockey puck floating out-of-bounds. Also, the defendant player ‘s body-check had occurred after the referee had blown his whistle twice to signal the play stoppage. After the injury, the defendant’s player received a game misconduct and a suspension. The player would also go on to settle with the plaintiff out
There were no concealed, unreasonably increased risks present at the time of the incident. D’Agostino graduated Massapequa High School in 2000. When the plaintiff’s injury caused, D’Agostino was 27 years old and weighed 275 pounds. When he was in high school, he wrestled for all four years, and he won some championship. On the other hand, the plaintiff was 6’2”, weighted 275. He was under age. He had many experiences of wrestling because he wrestled from 7th grade through 12th grade. Thus, they were almost in the same situation, except for their
Judicial History: Trial court returned verdict for the defendant (McIntosh). Johnson appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The student sued the school district for carelessly failing to teach and coach him the necessary skills to play field hockey. Because of this, the student argued that the school didn’t protect him from being struck in the face by another student’s stick during the course of a game. A few weeks after the injury, Devon
In colonial America, the court structure was quite different from that of their mother country, Great Britain. The system was a triangle of overlapping courts and common law. Common law was largely influenced by the moral code from the King James Version of the Bible, also known as moral law. In effect, these early American societies were theocratic and autocratic containing religious leaders, as well as magistrates. Sometimes these men were even one and the same. The criminal acts in colonial America were actually very similar to the crime prevalent in our society today. However, certain infractions were taken more seriously. Through the documents provided, we get a look at different crimes and their subsequent punishments in colonial
High profile police incidents obtain an enormous amount of attention in today’s world. This attention is greatly presented to society through means of the media. Whether the media portrays police incidents strictly on a local level or broadly through national media, the media often portrays the case to the audience in a biased way. The bias of the media greatly impacts not only how the community views the case, but also how juries and judges evaluate the case. Frequently, these cases end with case law and policy change, particularly when they are appealed to the Supreme Court. Although the Kingsley v. Hendrickson case did not gain much media attention, it did result in policy change as it was brought to the Supreme Court, in which the decision was made a precedent for all future cases.
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
The defendants could argue that Helen Happy’s suffered harm was incalculable, and that the physical and psychological harm she endured was a random case, and wouldn’t have happened to most people. However, the Thin Skull Rule says differently. The Thin Skull Rule was instituted after there was a man that had a piece of metal debris hit his head, and instead of having a large bruise, his skull caved in. In this man’s case, the judge ruled for him, and said that “you do not get to choose your victim”. Therefore, just because it happened to someone more susceptible -Helen Happy-it does not excuse the harm she suffered and the harm the defendants caused, even if it was a special