Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Tort of negligence, civil wrong
Negligence tests and principles
Classification of negligence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Tort of negligence, civil wrong
A police officer, Colin Allcars (Allcars), is suing Harry’s Ammo World (HAW) for his medical expenses, personal injuries, pain and suffering. HAW sold a rifle to Dakota D. West without checking West’s background for felonies or drug use. Federal law prevents the sale of firearms to anyone with a felony or to anyone that uses illegal drugs. Dakota had been convicted of a felony and was also a user of marijuana. Two months after the sale Dakota’s brother took the rifle and took hostages. When the police were trying to subdue and arrest Dakota’s brother he shot and wounded Colin AllCars. Allcars is suing HAW on the grounds of negligence. In order to prove a negligence case the plaintiff must prove four things: (1) duty - that the defendant owed …show more content…
State, which argues that “if a plaintiff 's injury is caused by the intervening act of a third-party, the defendant 's actions cannot be viewed as the proximate cause of that injury.” In this case the Montana State Hospital found Victor Buddell was a danger to himself and others but was released anyways. A few months later Buddell murdered David R. King, the son of the plaintiffs. The court contended that “the Kings could not establish proximate cause against the State, as the Kings’ injury was clearly caused by the act of Buddell.” Likewise, Allcar’s injuries are clearly caused by Dakota’s brother’s decision to shoot the rifle, not HAW’s negligence is selling the weapon to another …show more content…
In Finocchio v. Mahler, the defendant, William Mahler, kept a handgun and ammunition inside his bedroom. Another individual, Daniel Troy, entered into the home despite William Mahler’s instruction and desire to not let Troy into his home. Troy found the ammunition and later the handgun on multiple trips to the home. Troy then recklessly discharged the weapon, fatally wounding Amy Roberts. In arguing for the trial court’s decision to favor the defendant the appellate court stated
4. Facts: It was the time of August in 1986, when William Geringer with his family was on vacation at the Wildhorn Ranch Resort located in Teller County, Colorado. Due to some defective Paddleboating boat two of the family members (William Geringer and his minor son Jared Geringer) were drowned. Mr. Watters, a defendant, was formerly the owner of the resort, but he stated that he handed over the possession to Wildhorn Ranch Inc. “The other defendant, Les Bretzke, was a contractor with an autonomous company that endow with repair services and repair construction to the resort.” During the whole trial the main focus was on the maintainability issues of
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
Hicks is like the search of Justin Meyers home conducted by police in the fictional case in the text book. In both searches police were in the defendant’s homes and were searching for specific items, and during that search items were found that implicated the defendants in other crimes. There are several differences between the two cases. First, the severity of the crimes. Hicks’s case involved the theft of stereo equipment, while Myers case involved murder. Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia. This arises several questions. First where was the bloody rag found? Second, did the police have probable cause that Meyers was under suspicion of murder? Or was it simply a case of reasonable suspicion? In my opinion the results of the tests performed on the bloody rag found in Meyers case should not be admissible since Myers was not under suspicion of murder, and the bloody rag was not included in the lawful search warrant. The search is not considered legal, and not covered under the plain site doctrine. Myer’s fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure was violated by testing the bloody
On the evening of Ms. Heggar¡¦s death she was alone in her house. Eddie Ray Branch, her grandson, testified that he visited his grandmother on the day that she was killed. He was there till at least 6:30 p.m. Lester Busby, her grandnephew, and David Hicks arrived while her grandson was still there and they saw him leave. They then went in to visit with Ms. Heggar. While they were there, Lester repaid Ms. Heggar 80 dollars, which he owed her. They left around 7:15 p.m. and went next door to a neighboring friend¡¦s house. David Hick¡¦s went home alone from there to get something but returned within ten minutes of leaving. Because he was only gone for 5-10 minutes, prosecution theorized TWO attacks on Ms. Heggar because he could not have killed his grandmother during this 5-10 minute period alone. At 7:30 p.m., 15 minutes after the two had left, an insurance salesman called to see Ms. Heggar. He knocked for about 2 or 3 minutes and got no reply. Her door was open but the screen door was closed. Her TV was on. He claimed to have left after about 5 minutes and then he returned the next morning. The circumstances were exactly the same. With concern, he went to the neighbor¡¦s house and called the police. His reasoning for being there was because the grandmother¡¦s family had taken out burial insurance three days before she had died.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
Facts: Richard Gordon escaped from jail, passed three states in the car that they had already stolen; they had two guns in possession. The car that they had started to show engine problems, so they went and looked for another vehicle; they found the Chevelle. Richard Gordon was charged with having committed the crime of "Armed Robbery" He was also accused, with intention to kill, assaulted a police officer. Richard Gordon pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was found guilty of "Armed Robbery."
This case deals with the Defendant's possession of a firearm while under a restraining order, and the charges incurred by the Defendant for such firearm possession. Under Texas law, the possession of a firearm by Mr. Emerson creates a perceivable threat to members of his family, thus creating a violation of the restraining order against him. Apparently common practice in Texas, the restraining order was filed by Mr. Emerson's wife in conjunction with the papers filed for divorce. The restraining order sought to enjoin Emerson from "engaging in various financial transactions to maintain the financial status quo and from making threatening communications or actual attacks upon his wife during the pendency of the divorce proceedings" (United 1). Under Texas law, unbeknownst to Mr. Emerson, the possession of a firearm during the time period of the restraining order constituted a direct violation of the restraining order, and Mr. Emerson was indicted on charges of such violation.
In the Washington v Texas case, Jackie Washington the petitioner and another defendant were charged with murder. They were convicted of murder with malice and was sentenced by jury to a 50 year jail sentence. He was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend jean carter at her residence on Aug 29, 1964. It wasn’t clear whether the petitioner or Charles fuller fired the shot that fatally wounded the deceased. When Washington attempted to call Fuller as a defense witness, the prosecution objected on the ground that state law barred codefendants from testifying in each other’s behalf. Prevented from calling Fuller, who would have testified that he was the one who fired the shot that fatally killed the decease. Because Washington had fled the scene
from the victim and the scene of the crime be tested and his appeals were denied ("A.B. Butler").
In this case, Dwayne Giles was tried in state court for the murder of his ex-girlfriend. Dwayne Giles shot his ex-girlfriend, Brenda Avie, outside the garage of his grandmother’s house. There were not witnesses, but Giles’ niece heard what had occurred from inside the house. She heard Giles and Avie arguing. Avie then yelled “Granny” several times and a series of gunshots sounded. Giles’ niece and grandmother ran outside and saw Giles standing near Avie with a gun in his hand. Avie, who had not been carrying a weapon, had been shot six times. Giles fled the scene after the shooting. Police arrested him about two weeks later.
The State, Fann, the defendant, pointed a starter pistol at the victim during a robbery. Like the cane used by Burr during the stealing of the coin, the starter pistol used by Fann could not harmfully fire a projectile towards the victim, but looked strikingly similar to a real gun. Moreover, Fann pointed the gun at the victim, but did so in a way that did not indicate an intent to strike the victim with the object. This point also aligns with how Burr used the cane to motion for Mr. Shopkeeper to get in the closet, instead to indicate some sort of intent to strike Mr. Shopkeeper and inflict injury. The trial court initially convicted Fann of armed robbery, but on appeal, the court concluded that the starter’s pistol used by Fann was not used as an offensive weapon, thus vacating his armed robbery conviction.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case is about the defendant, Dana Martin who is strict liability for drug induced death or the possession of controlled dangerous substances or the possession of controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute. On the night of June 25th, witness Robin Simon found his son unconscious on his sofa non- responsive, in Robin’s mind he was probably sleeping. But, the touch of his cold skin alerted Robin, begging for him to wake. Later that night, Robin’s son, Zachary Simon was declared dead at Metro Hospital from overdosing on fentanyl. Zach will now be 21 years old forever in time. Zach was always a good student, he was a shy kid, did what he was told,and was an only child, he lost his mother
Steve Harmon is guilty of felony murder because he participated and had knowledge about a crime that ended up in the death of an innocent citizen. The judge stated the if you believe that Steve harmon took part in the crime than you must return a verdict of guilty. I believe that Steve went into the drugstore on that day for the purpose of being a lookout. Some of Steve’s journal entry’s lead to him feeling guilty or like a “monster”.
Parrish filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) against Luckie in his individual and official capacities, and against then Police Chief Bruce in his official capacity. The jury found Luckie liable in his official capacity and awarded damages of $150,000. The jury also found Chief Bruce liable in his official capacity and awarded damages of $50,000. The district court rejected appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and this appeal followed. The City raises several issues on appeal.