Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Concepts of tort law
Research essays on the concept of tort
Research essays on the concept of tort
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Concepts of tort law
The plaintiffs of the Court Case W.R.Grace and Beatrice Foods vs. Schlichtmann consisted of six families. In total, 8 children had died from leukemia in the small town of Woburn, Boston, causing families Kane, Tumez, Sullinger, Robbin, Aufiero and Anderson to file a civil action lawsuit with Schlichtmann, Conway and Crowley Law Office as their attorney. In order to prove that W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods contaminated Woburn's waterways, causing the surge of leukemia, Schlichtmann hired a team of scientists to scavenge through John Riley’s land (former owner of an involved leather tannery), where most of the waste was presumably manufactured and dumped. As more geologists and doctors are called upon, Schlichtmann begins to rack up an impressive $1.4 million deficit, forcing …show more content…
While waiting for the court’s final decision, Facher proposes a final offer, “...20 million dollars. Now, that would put things into perspective for you, wouldn’t it?” [3]. Counting the established settlement between Beatrice and Schlichtmann as well as Grace and Schlichtmann, the closing payment would be a whopping $65 million. Instead of agreeing to this offer, Jan Schlichtmann sets his destiny, as well as his clients, by ripping the twenty dollars produced by Facher in half, ultimately declining the offer. Back in the courtroom, Judge Skinner rules, “With respect to W.R. Grace, the jury has answered ‘yes’ to question 1 regarding trichloroethylene contamination, requiring we proceed further in the case against Grace to a second stage of this trial. In regard to Beatrice, the jury has answered ‘no’ to question 1, in all it’s points pertaining to contamination. Which renders question 2 and 3 inapplicable.” [4] By losing Beatrice, Schlichtmann forfeited 45 million dollars, ultimately only gaining $375,000 for each of the families. All in all, Jan Schlichtmann was unable to provide the plaintiffs with a successful
Facts of the Case: Darleen Suggs started working and helped maintain the produce business with the decedent, Junior Earl Norris, from 1973 until his death in 1983. During this time and according to several witnesses, the plaintiff did most of the farm work, as well as drive to markets 60 miles away, without aid of the decedent. She also handled all finances and deposited them into their joint bank account, giving her the reason to believe they had an implied contract that she was a partner and would receive one-half of the profits. In
Equuscorp launched proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against each of the respondents. Equuscorp’s claims were for “loss and damage” for breach of the loan agreements and for money had and received. The trial judge dismissed Equuscorp’s contractual claim in all eight cases and upheld the restitution claim in two cases. The respondents appealed this decision in the Supreme Court of Victoria’s Court of Appeal. In this appeal, the majority held that the trial judge erred and that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution. Equuscorp appealed against the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to the three respondents. Its grounds for appeal included that the Court of Appeal erred in deciding: a) that Equuscorp was not entitled to restitution for the unenforceable loan agreements; b) that it was not unjust for the respondents to keep the amounts pursuant to the unenforceable loan agreements; and c) that restitution was not assigned as a right or remedy to recover the amounts under the unenforceable loan agreements.
In their defense Pittston made attempts to distort the truth. They tried to separate themselves from the Buffalo Coal Company the subsidiary company which operated the failed dam. Pittston had the equity to compensate the plaintiffs while the Buffalo Coal Company was not valued high enough to give victims compensation. The lawyers from Arnold & Porter chose to sue the parent company because it was necessary to reach an adequate settlement. Psychic-impairment was used by the plaintiffs because it would give them the most compensation, and made up for the maximum amount state law allowed.
Wenger, Y., & Rector K. (2012, June 26). Jury Awards Waverly family $55 million in Hopkins malpractice case. The Baltimore Sun.
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
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.
One prevalent theme found throughout the book is the conflict between finding the truth and the judicial process. The two are almost always incompatible with each other in the courtroom, and A Civil Action illustrates that quite well. The fight for the truth was taken over by trial tactics used by the defendant, whose goal was to keep the truth from getting out. It is natural for the plaintiff and the defendant to use tactics to create the verdict rather than using the facts of the case because both aim for success. Misinformation, partial truths, and hidden facts are common in the courtroom and one scene of A Civil Action shows how it can change the whole trial. People of the courtroom can manipulate the trial so the odds are in their favor. Rarely is truth ever the main focus.
Before the jury decides a verdict, the last step in the trial process is the closing arguments. There were no closing arguments because the parties had to settle on nine million dollars. They did this because the plaintiff’s attorneys went bankrupt due to this case and they couldn’t afford to invest any more money into the case. Beatrice Foods ended up being not liable for the deaths of children so they were allowed to leave the case. Due to this, only W.R. Grace had to settle with the plaintiff. Later on in 1988, Jan Schlichtmann brought this case to the EPA’s attention and the EPA decided to bring lawsuits against the companies. W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods ended up having to pay for their huge mistake. They had to pay for the largest chemical cleanup in the Northeastern which cost sixty- four million dollars.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
Facts: A number of cases of liquor and a tool and die set were stolen from the bar and storeroom located in the Colony Arms Hotel in Glen Cove. Mr. Lerhinan was staying at a local motel and was several weeks late in payment. According to Chapter 10 in our textbook Hotel Restaurant and Travel Law, “guests rights to exclusive use of the room ends if the guest fails to pay as agreed or if the occupancy period expires” (Cournoyer, 368). The hotel manager entered Mr. Lerhinan’s room with the purpose of collection. When Mr. Lerhinan was found not to be in his motel room the manager decided to move all of his belongings to the basement and re-rent the room. The Chapter 10 states that, “the right to occupy the room reverts from the guest to the innkeeper, who is then entitled to enter the room, prepare it for the next visitor, and remove any remaining property of the guest” (Cournoyer, 368). While collecting Mr. Lerhinan’s belongings he came across the stolen liquor in the defendant’s closets; he immediately called the police. The defendant was arrested the next day and charged with the theft of the stolen items. Mr. Lerhinan moved to suppress the evidence found in the motel room, due to the fact that he claimed that the motel manager violated his fourth amendment to privacy by entering his motel room.
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
Facts: Mr. Walter Mickens Jr. brought an appeal, habeas petition, after being sentenced to death for premeditated murder, during or following the act of sodomy of Timothy Hall. Mr. Mickens later had learned that his appointed attorney had represented the victim at a prior date and stated this course of action violated his sixth amendment and was a conflict of interest on his attorney’s part. His lead attorney, Mr. Brian Saunders, never at any point of his representation of Mr. Mickens, disclosed he had represented the victim or let the District Judge know when he was appointed to Mr. Mickens that he had in the past represented Mr. Hall, victim, in juvenile
I, Hildegard Hedwig Steinberger, a resident of the State of Georgia, make, publish and declare this to be my Last Will and Testament, revoking all wills and codicils at any time heretofore made by me.
The Supreme Court allowed the execution of an inmate, who can’t remember the 1985 murder that sent him to death row. The court decision was unanimous and there were no noted dissents. The inmate, Vernon Maddison was sentenced for killing Julius Schlute who was a police officer responding to a domestic call. Vernon shot him twice in the back of the head. As the execution came closer and closer, Mr. Madison asked the court to cancel his death sentence. He wanted it to be canceled because he said he could not remember what he had done. A psychologist hired by Madison’s lawyers agreed that he understood what he was accused of, and how the state planned to punish him. Mr. Maddison said he understood his crime was wrong and he should be punished, but he just could not remember what he did and for this reason he thought he should not be executed. The court said “He is legally blind.His speech is