In the suit against Clark Kellogg by Steve Bushak’s estate, the legal arguments on Kellogg’s side regarding the claim that Clark had a duty to rescue Steve are that (1) there was an absence of a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to impose a duty of rescue and (2) the defendant would have put himself at risk of harm if he had initiated a rescue. The absence of a special relationship between Clark Kellogg and Steve Bushak is evident because the defendant did not create the hazardous situation which the plaintiff fell peril to. As the facts state, Bushak willfully “climbed on to the bench”, “jumped” over the exhibit wall and grabbed the Komodo Dragon causing his own venomous injection and consequent death. The fact of …show more content…
The existence of a special relationship between Kellogg and Bushak is evident by Kellogg’s creation of the perilous situation which the plaintiff was a victim of. Because he “would not take ‘no’ for an answer” while convincing Steve to go to the animal park and his relentless taunting with statements such as “Prove me wrong! Grab that big lizard”, Clark created an environment that provoked Steve to lift the Komodo Dragon and thus be injected with poisonous venom (Facts). If instead the facts specified that Clark physically drove Steve to the animal park, then Clark did physically force Steve into fatal danger. Unlike Steve Bushak who was “a graduate student in sociology”, Clark Kellogg was a “a medical student specializing in emergency medicine” which thus gave him special skills that granted him the capacity to perform a duty of rescue. (Facts). Kellogg would not have put himself at risk to execute this duty because the Komodo Dragon “lumbering towards the exit” away from possible contact (Facts). Also if Kellogg immediately notified medical emergency, Steve “would have survived” according to doctors
Case, Adeels Palace v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 entails a defendant, Adeels Palace Pty Ltd and two plaintiffs, Anthony Moubarak and Antoin Fayez Bou Najem. On New Year’s Eve 2002, a function, hosted by Adeels was open to members of the public, with a charged admission fee. A dispute broke out in the restaurant. One man left the premises and later returned with a firearm. He seriously injured both respondents. One was shot in the leg and other in the stomach. The plaintiffs separately brought proceedings against the defendant in the District Court of New South Wales (NSW), claiming damages for negligence. The trial judge issued Bou Najem $170,000 and Moubarak $1,026,682.98. It was held that the duty of care was breached by the defendant as they ‘negligently’ failed to employ security for their function. The breach of duty and resulted in the plaintiff’s serious injuries.
4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Bertram Cates - the defendant, who is a teacher. He taught his students about Charles Darwin's Origins of the Species in spite of the fact that it was against the laws of his state.
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
After being jailed in the Birmingham city jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister who preached nonviolence, wrote this response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama. This letter was not only composed under somewhat constricting circumstances but was written in a way that can be analyzed to be considered as a classic argument. Not only does it contain the five elements needed in a rhetorical situation, but the letter includes the six parts of an argument, the five types of claims, and even the three types of proofs. Dr. King’s letter fully satisfies all requirements needed in order to be considered a classic argument.
Chris McCandless was a very bright young man yet he was very ignorant at the same time. I do agree with Shaun Callarman with his argument about how Chris McCandless was a very ignorant man. Chris had such a bright future ahead of him by graduating from Wilbert Tucker High School and being a college graduate from Emory University with a bachelor 's degree in history and anthropology and yet he just let all of that go to waste. He was ignorant to the fact that he wanted to find happiness since he couldn 't find it within his household since his parents got into fights all of the time, and so he chose to leave that life, not tell his parents where he was going (which was stupid of him to not tell them), also it was completely stupid and dumb of
Vbansal. “The Effects of Dred Scott V. Sanford.” Associated Content. 06 August 2007. 26 May 2010.
The drought was near historic high levels for the time of year. In the moments before the entrapment on of the squads and the crew boss trainee were working with a fire engine and its three person crew when a spot fire erupted right next to the road. The seven Northwest Regular Crew number six and a engine crew got in there vehicles and drove south past the fire along the edge of the road. While driving they radioed the other 14 crewmembers who were working north further up the river about the dangerous situation. The 14 crewmembers and the incident commander and two Northwest Regular number six squad members were suppressing spot fires between the river and the road ¼ mile north of the first squad when they were informed of the situation that was threatening there es...
A child of abuse and neglect, Chris McCandless awed the world with his inspiring trip across the nation to find himself in Alaska. Leaving his well off life and his problematic family behind to be true to his ideas of life. His life impacted the people who knew him well and the strangers that drove him to his haven. When the story of this young man hitch hiking across the country broke ground, it made many people question if this boy was just crazy or did he really have a true understanding on the day to day live we were living and where we were going wrong. Although some critics have conceived the idea that Chris McCandless was just a crazed mad man with schizophrenia and the unachievable idea of true happiness. Many believe he was a new
Through a debate with Christopher A. Darden, an Associate Professor of Law at Southwestern School of Law in Los Angeles and Byron Warnken, a Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law, they ex...
Parise, A. S. (1991). Maryland v. Craig: Ignoring the Letter and Purpose of the Confrontation Clause. Brigham Young University Law Review , 1093-2007.
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association