More handpicked essays just for you.
Strict liability in civil cases
The case for greater use of strict liability
Notes on the tort of strict liability
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]). 3.2 Ratio Decidendi While issuing the ruling, Lord Atkins, one of the judges, established that manufacturers had an obligation to consumers or third parties who may consume the product, and not just the individual with the contractual agreement (the purchaser). Ratio Decidendi, defined as the primary statement of law or the rationale for judicial decision (Enright 2002) in this case was: Lord Atkins, established the ‘Neighbour Principle” that sought to consider the third party beyond the agreement between the manufacturer and purchaser. This argument formed the Obiter Dictum, defined as a ‘remark’ or an ‘accessory argument’ stated during a ruling (Palmirani, et al. 2012, p. …show more content…
Stevenson case was a civil one under the Scotland jurisdiction because it was a wrong committed by one person (Stevenson) that led to the ‘shock’ and ‘illness – gastroenteritis’ of another (Mrs. Donoghue). Therefore, under tort laws, there was reason for Mrs. Donoghue to sue Mr. Stevenson who was the manufacturer of the Ginger Beer. Moreover, the defendant was also seeking monetary compensation for the damages done and not a jail sentence or a
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.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
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.
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
[The case of Jaffe v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), was a landmark case for patient privilege that was heard by the Supreme Court in 1996. The case brought up the issue of client privilege and whether a social worker and client’s relationship should be protected. The Supreme Court found in favor of Redmond in the case however, Justice Scalia dissented in the case. In this research his dissent will be explored and an argument for protection of the relationship between a social worker and their client will be made.
Elijah manuel was sitting in the passenger seat of a car when he gets pulled over. The officer smelt marijuana, so he dragged him out of the car and patted him down. He found a bottle of pills, tested it, and falsified the results to show the pills were ecstasy. They were later tested again and proven not to be ecstasy. Charges were then dropped and Manuel sues the city of joliet and the city police officers. His malicious prosecution claim was dismissed under Newsome v. McCabe which held that that federal claims of malicious prosecution steam from the right to due process and are not a Fourth Amendment issue. So the question presented to the court was whether or not an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
During late October in 1967 a man named James Richardson was charged for the murder of his seven children. The children were poisoned and it is believed that he was the one who poisoned them. There is no solid, or reasonable evidence that it was him. Anything that even remotely points to him is all people’s speculative opinions. Everything seemed to be stacked against him. James Richardson was wrongfully convicted for the murder of his seven children, and there is some evidence that points towards who most likely did it.
Years and wars later another case comes to the Supreme Court to test Freedom and Speech and the Clear and Present Danger test. David O’Brien is a Boston University student protesting the Vietnam War and its draft. O’Brien is convicted for burning his draft card in March 31, 1966. (McGoldrick 2006, 903). O’Brien and three others were charged with violating the Universal Military Training Service Act, which prohibits the destruction of a draft card. O’Brien was found guilty and was sentenced to federal prison for a period of two to five years. Boston’s First Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the court conviction on the grounds that the law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards violated the First Amendment. O’Brien’s act was interpreted as symbolic speech. The appellate court, then, ruled that while O’Brien’s free speech rights should be upheld, he could
The Stella Liebeck vs. McDonalds Restaurants is one of the most talked about and well known cases in the last two decades. Even though the occurrence of Stella Lieback’s burns occurred in 1992, however, it was only two years after the occurrence that the trail for the case began. The parties involved in this case included, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck, whom bought a cup of coffee from a McDonald’s drive-thru located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. During the incident, Stella Lieback placed the cup of coffee between her legs. When she placed the cup of coffee between her legs she tried to remove the lid, which is when the spill occurred. At the time, the vehicle was not in motion nor was Stella operating the vehicle. She was simply trying to add creamer
On February 27, 1992 Stella Liebeck of New Mexico went to purchase coffee from Mc. Donald in her grandson’s car. Liebeck’s grandson then parked the car to give her an opportunity to put her cream into her coffee. The car transporting her at the time, had no cup holder so she improvised and placed the cup between her legs. During that process Liebeck spilled all of her coffee and was rushed to the hospital, because the coffee burn through the pants that she was wearing. Upon arriving at the hospital she was informed by the doctors that she suffered third degree on six percent of her skin. Liebeck suffered tremendously as a result of the burn. She was hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo surgery. Apart from that she was somewhat disabled for two years. Liebeck made attempts to settle with McDonald, she wanted them to be accountable for the injury she suffered. She wanted them to pay for the incurred expenses as well as the expense she anticipated in the future. McDonald on the other hand agreed to pay $800.00 but Liebeck was asking for $20.000. This case wasn’t settled using ADR methods so it became a trial (Wiki, n.d).
Norris, J. A., Garinger, G., & Kurtz, N. C. (1978). Selected recent court decisions. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 5(1), 1-2.
The first category of entrant is that of a contractual entrant. This class of entrant is defined by McMahon and Binchy as someone who enters “premises in pursuance of a contract between himself or herself and the occupier” . The classic examples of this category include sports spectators and concert goers. The duty owed to this type of entrant was found in the terms of the contract. If no such terms existed, as stated in the Law Reform Commission, “there is an implied term on the part of the occupier that he has taken reasonable care to make the premises safe for the contemplated purposes” . An example of implying terms can be found in the case of Callaghan v Killarney Race Course . The case centred around an injury suffered by a spectator at the races and whether the occupiers had acted with reasonable care. Maguire CJ noted that “There were no terms of contract between him and the defendant Company and the contract between them is to be implied from the circumstances of the case.” The Supreme Court dismissed the case as it was felt...