Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Facts The sisters, Linda Hagan and Barbara Parker, were both agreed that the taste of the Coke that they drank from a bottle is flat. As Hagan held the bottle up to the light, she and Parker thought that a used condom with “oozy stringy stuff coming out on top” was inside the bottle. In return, both women were distressed because they had consumed some foreign material, and Hagan immediately became nauseated. The next day, the two concerned women went to the health care facility; there were given shots and tested for HIV as per advised by the medical personnel of the facility. However, the results of the HIV test at that time they went to the facility and after six months were both negative. The sisters filed …show more content…
Similar to the sisters’ observation, the analyst initially thought that the foreign material that was floating in the bottle was a condom, however, upon examination, he was scientifically certain that the foreign object was a mold. As the trial ended, the jury favored the plaintiffs, awarding them $75,000 each. Nevertheless, the trial court decreased the jury award to $25,000 each to Hagan and Parker. Both involved parties appealed to the Fifth District Court Appeals. The appellate court concluded under the case law concerning the impact rule -that the sisters had not established a claim because they did not suffer a physical injury. The appellate court reversed the jury award. Issues Whether Florida’s courts should abolish or amend the impact rule concerning a plaintiff in a negligence case could not recover damages for emotional harm unless some impact produced physical injury to the body? Holdings Although, many states had abolished the “impact rule,” Florida still follows to the rule. However, the court concluded that there was an impact and that the impact rule does not preclude the claim. Moreover, the court rephrased the certified question to whether the impact rule bars the claim for damages for emotional distress caused by the consumption of a foreign substance in a beverage product where the plaintiff suffers no accompanying physical injuries.
Issue: The appellants are claiming that the court erred in determining that the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act (MLIA) was not applicable in their claims. Mainly on errors and omissions of medical staff as well as asserted administrative negligence of the hospital that actually occurred before the defendant was admitted at the facility. The appellees’ motion relied on Rose v Garland County Hospital. (Las Colinas Medical Centre)
The court ruled in favor of the Norton family, in the amount of 10,807$ for the mother, and 13,000$ for the father in wrongful death of the daughter, baby Robyn Bernice Norton. The court ruled against the nurse, physician and hospital all of whom were found liable for the death of the infant. The awards to the family was later reduced to $5,807 and $5,000. The reason being that the Norton family already had three children and Robyn was only with them for three months so the attachment was low. This being said the courts found the Nortons were more than capable of have more children in the
In Herbert’s and Seaver’s letters (1970), Herbert writes to Seaver discussing Seaver’s commercial use of the line “It’s the Real Thing” for Mr. Haskin’s book without “consent” from the Coca-Cola company: Seaver’s letter is a reply discussing the misunderstanding for the line. The speaker of both letters utilizes a different approach to explain to each other their justification of Coca-Cola’s ownership for the line and commercial use of it. Herbert’s letter contains a condescending and arrogant tone; because of this, Seaver replied back in a satirical, sarcastic, and an almost amused tone.
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
Counsel of the appellant sought a certificate from the judge to bring an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal against the admissibility of the coincidence evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, ruling the coincidence evidence inadmissible. It adopted a different approach than that in NSW in reviewing the ruling of the Evidence.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Issue: Under Kentucky tort law, does intentional infliction of emotional distress occur when a person suffers severe insomnia and anxiety as a result of witnessing a friend¡¦s child being injured by a vehicle that is out of control due to being driven at a high rate of speed through a school zone?
Tarasoff v. *626 Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal.3d 425, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, 24, 551 P.2d 334, 344 (1976) – Primary
Frye v. United States and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals are both legal decisions that set forth standards as they pertain to the admissibility of scientific or forensic evidence, and the admissibility of expert witness testimony. Both cases deal with the admissibility of evidence in judicial proceedings, and prevent prosecutors from abusing the use of expert witnesses and testimony. Due to a loophole that dismisses recent scientific advances when applying the Frye Rule, the Supreme Court revisited Frye, and “took the occasion to issue guidelines for deciding the admissibility of scientific evidence” (Gaensslen, Harris, & Henry, 2008, p. 53). The decision resulted in a five-prong approach called the Daubert Standard.
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
but only 3 cases had been found where it had been seriously contended. The verdict was
A second testimony that supports the opposite of the verdict, was the fact that Mr. Ewell never called a doctor after learning of Mayella's injuries. Following the incident, there had not been any physical examination performed by a certified physician. If indeed Mr. Robinson had committed the crime, Mr. Ewell's first instinct would have been to get his daughter checked out. Upon finding his daughter 'assaulted';, he would have wanted to have her injuries treated including the injury that might been caused by rape.
She wanted to go to the Lane Health Center, but it was Sunday and she knew it was closed. She looked on the Internet for information on what she thought was a “magic pill” and discovered she could still take it two days later. On Monday, she walked into the Lane Health Center and after waiting a few minutes, she was assisted by a nurse. After she nervously explained what had happened, she said she was given a survey that contained a series of medical questions. In addition to the emergency contraception pill, a pregnancy test was administered and she was tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
Cola Wars Environmental Analysis 1. Introduction External environmental analysis of US carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry allows concluding that declining CSD sales call for changes in industry operations whereby market players can benefit from the fundamental shift in the industry development and maintain its leadership positions in beverage market. Analyses of macrolevel, industry, and competitive environments suggest that expansion, strong brand recognition, and changes in value chain will be key success factors in the future industry development. 2. What is the difference between a.. External environmental analysis a. Macrolevel environment (PESTEL analysis) i. Political New federal nutrition guidelines identified CSD as the largest source of obesity-causing sugars in the American diet.
The judge exhibited a strong mathematical fallacy when he assumed that repeating the test could not tell us anything about the reliability of the first results. What he didn’t realize was that by doing a test twice and obtaining the same result, it would tell us something about the possible accuracy of the original result.