Ga code states that the owner of premises is liable to any damages to persons for injuries caused by failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe. Ga. Code Ann. § 51-3-1 (2016). In Brownlee v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, 240 Ga. App. 368, 523 S.E.2d 596 (1999), the court defined the concept of premises liability to depend on pre-existing conditions, the proprietor’s superior knowledge of the defects on the premises and a foreseeable knowledge that the proprietor’s actions or inaction would cause injury to the plaintiff. Based on the facts of our case it is clear that the apartment manager was negligent in keeping the premises safe. Ms. Traylor was informed that the premises were safe due to a number of factors that included a well-lit parking lot. However, after she complained to of the physical defects within the parking lot, no action was taken to fix the defect. In Smith v. General Apartment Company, 133 Ga. App. 927, 213 S.E.2d 74 (1975), the court held that the landlord was not liable for damages to the injured person due to a lease agreement that allows relief to the landlord. It is possible, that our client may have signed a waiver for the apartment …show more content…
manager in which case would relieve the apartment manager of any damages to our client. However, the court held that there could be liability based on foreseeability. The issue in our case is whether the proprietor’s breach of duty was the proximate cause to our client’s injury.
In Ga Bowling Enterprises v. Robbins, 103 Ga. App. 286, 119 S.E.2d 52 (1961), the court ruled that the qualification for the defendant to be held liable for damages to the injured person by the criminal acts of a third person, depended on if he could expect or anticipate violent conduct. In our case, our client warned the apartment manager of the upkeep of the premises security details in fear of assault. It is possible that due to these allegations, foreseeability may have been created if it hadn’t already existed. It must be taken into account that our client was informed of the safety of the premises due to the well-lit parking lot as a factor by the apartment
manager. According to this information, the apartment manager defined “safety” of the apartment complex to include a well-lit parking lot. The apartment manager foresaw that an unmanaged parking lot could lead to an assault based on awareness. In Houston v. Bedgood, 263 Ga. App. 139, 588 S.E.2d 437 (2003), the court held that there was no duty to control the actions of a third person. Because the court determined that there was no duty to control the actions of a third person, the manager’s negligence may not be the proximate cause to our client’s injuries Id. at 440. CONCLUSION: Based on the interpretation of law by the courts, the apartment manager was negligent in the upkeep of the apartment complex. The court determined in Houston, 588 S.E.2d at 440, that there was no duty to control the actions of a third person. However, it was also determined that in the event of foreseeability there are liabilities. According to the facts, the apartment manager defined “safety” of the premises to be determined by a well-lit parking lot along with other security factors. The apartment manager was aware of the dangers of a dim-lit parking lot, by the previous care made to ensure the safety of the parking lot. The manager’s negligence resulted in a foreseeable incident in which Ms. Traylor was assaulted. There are liabilities to the apartment complex for damages to our client due to the lack of maintenance.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
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.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County was a landmark Supreme Court Case which was ruled on in February, 1989. The case revolved around Joshua DeShaney, a child who who was reportedly abused by his father, Randy DeShaney. In 1980, Joshua's parents divorced and his father won full custody. In 1983, Joshua was hospitalized for suspected abuse by his father. Winnebago County Department of Social Services got involved and four year old Joshua DeShaney was kept in the hospital's custody for three days. However, “On the recommendation of a 'child protection team,' consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county's lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, the juvenile court dismissed the case and returned the boy to the custody of his father.” (US Supreme Court). Over the next year, Winnebago's Department of Social Services visited the DeShaney household five times and each time, suspected child abuse was reported. In January and March of 1984, Joshua was reported too ill to be visited by social services for his bimonthly check ups. Evidently, he had been beaten to the point of slipping in to a life threatening coma by his father. Emergency brain surgery revealed that Joshua had a series of severe brain hemorrhages caused by head injuries inflicted over a long period of time. Joshua DeShaney survived, but he suffered severe brain damage and was not expected to ever make a full recovery.
'Choosing death before dishonor is seen by some philosophers and ethicists as a rational reason to commit suicide.' In the 1994 case of Glucksberg v. Washington (Otherwise acknowledged as Compassion In Dying v. The State Of Washington), Harold Glucksberg, alongside the right-to-die organization Compassion In Dying, filed a suit in opposition to the state of Washington for three fatally ill patients he treated.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
After a four year hiatus in the Supreme Court docket, the court finally rule in 1824, the case of Gibbons v. Ogden, which eventually proclaimed the federally supremacy clause and the commerce clause, but it's impact of American commerce can still be felt today.
Defendant Freddie Lee Hall filed a motion to declare Florida Statute 921.137 (Florida Statute) as contrary to Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and, thus, unconstitutional. Hall, convicted in 1981 for the murder of Karol Hurst, was initially sentenced to death in September 1982. For three years, he fought his sentence, filing “a motion to vacate, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an application for a stay of execution, all of which were denied” . In 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal and reversed part of the lower court’s ruling, a decision granted when the court found Hall “entitled to a hearing on the issues of his absence from the courtroom and whether he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim” .
Furman v. Georgia was a landmark case in the annals of American Law because it was the first time the Supreme Court turned to the controversial question of capital punishment. Capital punishment has always been a hotly debated issue in the United States. When this issue is coupled with the issue of racial discrimination, the matter becomes hotter than ever. And this is precisely what Furman v. Georgia was all about: a black man convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
In 1932, the State of Washington legislated a new law that set minimum wages for women. The goal of this law was to establish minimum wages for women and children in order to help combat problems related to women’s health. Elis Parrish who was a maid at a hotel had claimed that the hotel had not paid her the law’s minimum wage. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish was a Supreme Court case that was judged in 1937. The Supreme Court was trying to make a decision on the legitimacy of the minimum wage legislation that was enacted by the State of Washington. This legislation by the State of Washington overturned an earlier decision on the court case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital that was judged in 1923. This is an important Supreme Court case because it is believed to have ended the Lochner era which was a period that the Supreme Court tended to dismiss cases related to economic regulations that were adopted by State courts.
In 1974, Ehrlich Coker escaped from prison. While on the run Coker encountered the Carver’s during a burglary of their residence. Coker pistol whipped Mr. Carver taking his vehicle keys. Coker kidnapped and raped Mrs. Caver before being caught. Coker was placed on trial and was found guilty and sentenced to death for the rape of Mrs. Carver. Coker’s case was heard by the Georgia Supreme Court where Coker’s sentence was upheld; however, the United Supreme granted certiorari on the basis that Coker’s sentence violated eighth amendment of the United States Constitution, cruel and unusual punishment.
The first element of negligence in the Cinemark case is the duty they had to their customers. Cinemark has a duty to provide a safe environment to their customers. The second element of negligence, conduct in breach of that duty, was due to the lack of security provided by the theater. The lack of security is what led to the third element of negligence, causation. The plaintiffs, in this case, that attended the late night showing of The Dark Knight, were injured because of the lack of security provided by Cinemark: there was no security personnel on duty, there were no alarms on the doors to the theater, and during the event there were no staff members present to aid the injured and evacuating crowed. James Homes, the shooter, was able
Decide whether the landlord and / or the tenant had a legal duty to mitigate