Memorandum of Law Statement of Assignment: You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether our client can gain relief from intentional infliction of emotional distress occurring from 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. Pursuant to your request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law. 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? Brief Answer: No. Under Kentucky tort law, no recovery can be had for personal injury resulting from fright occasioned by negligence of another, where there is no immediate personal injury, trespass to real estate, or some contract relation. Furthermore, a cause of action will not lie in favor of a woman for pain and suffering resulting solely from fright, unaccompanied by physical injury, superinduced by one who without seeing her or knowing of her presence, and without trespassing on her premises, assaulted a third person. Also, the long-standing rule in this jurisdiction is that in negligence cases there can be no recovery for fright, shock, or mental anguish which is unaccompanied by physical contact or injury. Statement of Facts: On April 14, Ida Carry was in her front yard, across the street from Roosevelt Elementary School, and children were playing in the playground. She heard the crossing guard¡¦s whistle blow and tires squealing. ... ... middle of paper ... ...ted to her. Although she was undeniably injured and her suffering is provable, she cannot establish that she was injured directly by Bob Barton¡¦s actions. The relevant case law for this situation comes from several cases from Kentucky: 761 S.W.2d 625, 597 S.W.2d 141, 147 S.W. 742, 112 S.W. 600, and 77 S.W. 361 among others. These cases establish the law as defined by the courts that without physical contact a claim for negligence cannot be reputable. Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
Facts: A minor and his mother filed suit for damages against Tri-County Orthopedic physicians for false diagnose and filling a child abuse reports. The Michigan Court of Appeals rule that child abuse reporting statue provides immunity to persons who file the child abuse was report in good faith even if the reports were a negligent diagnosis which was cause of the child bone fractures. The court also appealed that damage of shame and humiliation was not recoverable to Michigan statute. Immunity from liability did not extend for damages of malpractice which has been the result from the failure to diagnose the child disease.
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
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)
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
First I would like to address the definition of Battered Woman Syndrome. Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) is a condition often used by the defense in cases like this one to relieve the defendant of some or
In the state of New Columbia, Alex Billings has accused CJ Pearson, previously a friend, of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This all started because CJ invited Alex to a “Go-go” and Alex wore a weird outfit. (30) All of the “distress” happened over text, on MyFace, and in person with comments that Pearson intended as jokes. CJ Pearson is not guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress because one, he did not meet all of the requirements in his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) test that the erudite professor gave him; and two, Alex Billings might have had another motive for staying home from school.
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
Issue: Did the State of Illinois violate the Equal Protection Clause when it denied Peter Stanley a hearing on his fitness to keep his children?
Reasoning: The Court held that Mr. Faretta has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel. However, he may not complain later that he received inadequate assistance of and to legal counsel.
There are numerous facts about this case that will be legally significant. The facts about the accident would include:
On December 20, 2011 at approximately 12:17 p.m., Elina Burdin was driving her motor vehicle South on Grove Street overpass in Bridgewater, NJ. At this time, Ms. Burdin was going around a u-turn roundabout when she gradually slowed her vehicle down due to traffic in front of her. While slowing down almost to a stop Ms. Burdin’s vehicle was struck from behind by a motor vehicle owned and operated by defendant William M. Koszkulics at a high rate of speed. The force of this impact knocked Ms. Burdin’s vehicle forward jarring her body forwards and back.
Officer Cox informed me, upon his arrival there was a two-month-old child, Jack Newbury, had become unresponsive and was being further transported by EMS to the hospital in Muskogee. Officer Taylor Mills followed EMS to the hospital. The residence where this incident occurred is a home daycare, approved and certified by the Department of Human Services.
Explain the issue or dilemma using information from the readings in the book and other sources.
I am filing this complaint on behalf of my husband and myself. Not due to the decision of the sitting judge, which we honor and will adhere to, but due to the bias and lack of ethics we experienced in Judge Hellenger’s courtroom.
“Car accidents are the leading cause of death for children ages 1-12 years old” (Nienstedt 140). The disturbing fact is many of these unfortunate accidents could have been prevented with the use of proper child restraints. Many of motor vehicle deaths involving child are because a child safety seat was not used or not properly installed. In the United States there are some crucial steps that must be taken in order to reduce the number of future death due to caregiver negligence. Child safety seat law should be made of a national level in order to eliminate any gaps in the current state-to-state child safety seats laws. Theses law need to be made to reflect