V. Causes of Action A. Claims against Mondello a. Threat of Bodily Injury 5.01 Cleaver hereby adopts by reference the allegations contained in Section IV (“Facts”) hereinabove, and incorporates the allegations as if fully set forth at length herein. 5.02 Cleaver would show that Mondello intentionally threatened Cleaver with imminent bodily injury by brandishing a shovel and informing Cleaver he should leave. If Cleaver failed to comply Mondello threatened harm by specifically stating she would “kick [Cleaver’s] ass.” As a result of Mondello’s actions, Cleaver became apprehensive which caused injury. 5.03 Cleaver seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. b. Infliction of Bodily Injury 5.04 Cleaver hereby adopts by reference …show more content…
the allegations contained in Section IV (“Facts”) hereinabove, and incorporates the allegations as if fully set forth at length herein. 5.05 In addition to threatening bodily injury with a shovel, Cleaver would show that Mondello made physical contact with Cleaver’s person twice during the altercation.
Cleaver would show that Mondello’s fist came into contact with Cleaver’s nose. Additionally, Mondello caused the shovel to come into contact with Cleaver’s left kneecap. Mondello caused Cleaver bodily injury by breaking Cleaver’s nose and left knee cap. Mondello’s action resulted in $60,000 in medical bills and $5,000 in property damage. 5.06 Cleaver seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this …show more content…
court. c. Tortious Interference with an Existing Contract 5.07 Cleaver hereby adopts by reference the allegations contained in Section IV (“Facts”) hereinabove, and incorporates the allegations as if fully set forth at length herein. 5.08 Cleaver would show that Cowtown Carts, Inc. had a valid contract with the Wentworth Country Club. Additionally, Cleaver would show that Mondello was a member of the club, had reason to know of the contract and Cleaver’s interest in the contract, and caused the Club to breach its contract with Cowtown Carts, Inc. 5.09 Cleaver would also show that but for Mondello’s action the Club would not have terminated the contract causing Cowtown Carts, Inc. to suffer $50,000 of actual damages. 5.10 Cleaver seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court. B. Claim against Katie Pery a. Negligence 5.11 Cleaver hereby adopts by reference the allegations contained in Section IV (“Facts”) hereinabove, and incorporates the allegations as if fully set forth at length herein. 5.12 Cleaver would show that Pery owed and breached her legal duty to act as an emergency responder. Courts have interpreted this duty to include: taking necessary action to prevent harm; performing a thorough assessment of the patient and situation; providing appropriate treatment; and transporting to an appropriate receiving facility when warranted. 5.13 Cleaver would show that Pery breached this duty by leaving him outside of the ambulance on a stretcher with knowledge of the hostile situation concerning Cleaver’s political affiliation; failing to perform a thorough assessment of Cleaver when he was bleeding profusely from the nose; and refusing to transport Cleaver to Mercy. Pery’s breach of duty proximately caused further injury to Cleaver since he was left open to attach by Mondello, which resulted in a broken knee cap and pain and suffering. 5.14 Cleaver seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. C.
Claim against George Klooney a. Negligence 5.15 Cleaver hereby adopts by reference the allegations contained in Section IV (“Facts”) hereinabove, and incorporates the allegations as if fully set forth at length herein. 5.16 Cleaver would show that Klooney owed and breached his legal duty to act as an emergency responder. Courts have interpreted this duty to include: taking necessary action to prevent harm; performing a thorough assessment of the patient and situation; providing appropriate treatment; and transporting to an appropriate receiving facility when warranted. 5.17 Cleaver would show that Klooney breached his duty by leaving him outside of the ambulance on a stretcher with knowledge of the hostile situation based on Cleaver’s political affiliation; failing to perform a thorough assessment of Cleaver when he was bleeding profusely from the nose; and refusing to transport to Mercy. Klooney’s breach of duty proximately caused further injury to Cleaver since he was left open to attach by Mondello, which resulted in a broken knee cap and pain and suffering. 5.18 Cleaver seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. D. Claim against Geico, Inc. a. Bad
Faith 5.19 Cleaver hereby adopts by reference the allegations contained in Section IV (“Facts”) hereinabove, and incorporates the allegations as if fully set forth at length herein. 5.20 Cleaver was an insured under an insurance contract issued by Geico, Inc., which gave rise to a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Cleaver would show that this insurance policy was purchased to cover the golf cart with a limit of $25,000 prior to the altercation. 5.21 Cleaver would show that Geico, Inc. breached its duty by denying payment of a covered claim even though its liability under the policy was reasonably clear. Cleaver would show that the damage to the golf cart was caused by Mondello’s action and covered under the policy. 5.22 Geico, Inc.’s breach of duty proximately caused injury to Cleaver, which resulted in damages of $5,000 that were not covered and the expense of hiring a lawyer. 5.23 Cleaver seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this Court. E. Claim against Wentworth Club, Inc. a. Breach of Contract 5.24 Cleaver hereby adopts by reference the allegations contained in Section IV (“Facts”) hereinabove, and incorporates the allegations as if fully set forth at length herein. 5.25 Cleaver would show that he has standing to enforce Cowtown Carts, Inc.’s contract with the Wentworth Country Club as the sole beneficiary of the closely-held corporation under Tex. Bus. Orgs. § 21.563. 5.26 Cleaver would show that Cowtown Carts, Inc. and Wentworth Country Club entered into a valid and enforceable contract for the rental of 100 golf carts during the weeklong LPGA Tournament, and that Wentworth County Club would pay $50,000. 5.27 Furthermore, Cleaver would show that Cowtown Carts, Inc. was excused from performing its contractual obligations when the Wentworth Country Club breached the contract by termination. This breach caused injury to Cowtown Carts, Inc., which resulted in $50,000 of expectation damages. 5.28 Cleaver seeks damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court. Pursuant to Tex. Bus. Orgs. § 21.563(c)(1), any recovery may be paid directly to Cleaver. VI. Respondeat Superior/Vicarious Liability 6.01 Cleaver restates and re-alleges each of the allegations set forth herein and incorporates them herein. 6.02 Upon information and belief, the individual Defendants Katie Pery and George Klooney are employees of Mercy General Hospital. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Mercy General Hospital is liable for the torts (alleged herein) of its employees acting in the scope of their employment even though the employer did not personally commit the torts.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
On the morning of May 17th, 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two-car collision. Police and Ambulance were dispatched and arrive on scene at the intersection of Kenny and Fernley Street. Ambulance conducted various assessments on Ms. Walker which revealed no major injuries and normal vital signs. Mrs walker denied further medical investigation and denied hospital treatment. Later on, Queensland police conducted a roadside breath test that returned a positive reading, police then escorted Ms. Walker to the cairns police station. Ms. Walker was found to be unconscious, without a pulse and not breathing. An ambulance was called but attempts to revive her failed (Coroner’s Inquest, Walker 2007). The standard of Legal and ethical obligation appeared by paramedics required for this situation are flawed and require further examination to conclude whether commitments of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice were accomplished.
The Lewis Blackman Case: Ethics, Law, and Implications for the Future Medical errors in decision making that result in harm or death are tragic and costly to the families affected. There are also negative impacts to the medical providers and the associated institutions (Wu, 2000). Patient safety is a cornerstone of higher-quality health care and nurses serve as a communication link in all settings which is critical in surveillance and coordination to reduce adverse outcomes (Mitchell, 2008). The Lewis Blackman Case 1 of 1 point accrued
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
What ethical principles were impacted? What was the ethical duty of care to Lewis? How was it breached?
Cotj, Lawerence. “The Facts Behind the Angela Davis Case.” Human Events 17 June 1972: 447. Web
After analyzing the discourse community of law and the detailed process lawyers take in order to write an effective appeals brief, one can see that lawyers have a very specific and unique way of communicating that includes certain jargon unfamiliar and possibly incomprehensible to the general public. Although writing an appeal brief is only one aspect of many that government prosecuting attorneys such as Kenny Elser face in their jobs on a daily basis, it is also a very necessary job because not only is it used by a single discourse community in the law profession but utilized by the discourse community of law as a whole.
By ruling in the favor of Mr. Quinlan, the New Jersey Supreme Court allowed for patient autonomy to be exercised by an incompetent patient. Though the legal implications of this decision vary from state to state, medical ethics now had to incorporate the possible refusal of a once competent patient unable to give that refusal. This concept is not one that was totally unexpected by the medical community. By developing machinery capable of sustaining life even in the case of severe deficit, it is only natural that medical ethics would need to adapt, growing to accommodate this new realm of consideration. Just as a competent person has the right to decide “how much to struggle, how much to suffer, how much bodily invasion to tolerate, and...
Finally, the ethical response to Cronan individually in the situation as listed in the narrative would be to find him a position constrained only by the limits of his medical condition where he would find job satisfaction in a workplace environment free of hostility and sexual harassment, with relocation provided if necessary.
...ing him, and the expectation was that there would be a well-publicized trial rather than a brief in which Ray admitted his guilt and was sentenced.” (Clark 240)
Bruce G. Charlton Journal of Medical Ethics , Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sep., 1992), pp. 156-159
Imagine being a first year medical surgeon just out of the highest-ranking university in the nation. You are placed in the ER, in the Methodist Hospital building, as your days are spent saving people from the cruel realities that they are forced to live among. Day after day, you see handfuls of people coming in with a variety of gunshot, knife, and domestic violence wounds. Your troubles are easily compensated, however, by receiving over $200,000 a year, a brand new Mercedes, and a house upon the palisade shores. Suppose for a moment that one evening while you are on duty, an ambulance radios in and informs the hospital staff that they are bringing in a multiple gunshot wound victim and to prepare the ER for an immediate operation. You begin to order people around and dictate what needs to be prepared before the ambulance arrives. Finally the victim is present, only to show that he is not the average gangster or policeman, instead it is the near lifeless body of your own son. Your blood freezes; your brain shuts down, as you see every precious second slip away through the lifeless gaze of your child's eyes.
I think that both issues could have resulted in patient harm, even if that was not the intended action. The results in this case deals with beneficence and nonmaleficence. This is the basic duty of a health care professional: to do good and avoid harm. Both of which were violated in this case. I feel that Dr. Strunk realized that the hospital’s policy was violated his morals and code of ethics. I believe that the hospital’s administration only looked out for themselves. Although no visible harm was done to the patient, the best course of action was to inform the patient of the mistake. One could argue no harm, no foul, but I believe that the hospital should consider the patient’s overall well-being. If the patient found out about the error down the road, the hospital may be in even more trouble.
... rest of the jury to follow. Personal issues should never be brought into the workplace; it proves to be distracting and unproductive. In this case there would have been two tragic deaths in one family.