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.
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.
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
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.
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.
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?
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
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...
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
but only 3 cases had been found where it had been seriously contended. The verdict was
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.
One night ,while working as usual, Jane Doe injects nasal spray butorphanol (Stadol) to a couple women who are in labor. Some of the women did not require the full dosage of the drug so she slipped the leftovers in her pocket. Once her shift had ended that night, Jane was getting ready to leave when she decided to use the restroom. When she was there she remembered that she had some leftover drugs in pocket. Jane cautiously looked around and checked every stall to make sure no one was there. She then took the drugs out and injected herself. Thirty minutes later a colleague finds Jane passed out in the restroom. She is immediately treated and once awake, is taken to a drug-testing facility to provide a urine sample. At the drug-testing facility Jane admitted to stealing the drug and justified herself by saying it helped her cope with the stress of taking on extra shifts, and caring for her two young children and her severely disabled mother. Jane said “I thought I could stop any time but I was wrong.”
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
The Porter’s model of competitive advantage of nations is based on four key elements including factor endowments, demand conditions, related and supporting industries and firm strategy, structure and rivalry. This makes it suitable in understanding the competition existing in the soft drinks industry in the Asian markets. The factor conditions identify the natural resources, climate, location, and demographics. Coca cola and Pepsi enjoy the growing population in the Asian markets (Yoffie, 2002). A higher population guarantees the two companies adequate revenues. Other factors include communication infrastructure and availability of skilled workers. Most of the Asian countries are embracing new technologies that grow much knowledge of the diverse beverage drinks. Secondly, the demand conditions play a significant role in enhancing competitiveness for the firms. Both Coca cola and Pepsi are an
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.
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.