Abstract This paper describes issues of legal negligence ascribed to a coach based on a football player's failure to buckle his football helmet during play which resulted in an injury to the student's neck. Immunity, negligence and comparative negligence are examined in the paper. The paper finally makes a determination, along with assumptions in making the determination, that the proper defense was comparative negligence.
From the Paper "We live in a litigious society. People who feel they have been wronged will file lawsuits against whom ever they can ascribe blame to; school coaches are no exception. While the laws governing tort liability vary per state, this paper will describe a generic football based neck injury for failure to buckle a football helmet during play and discuss the legal categories of negligence and comparative negligence as applicable to this case. The paper will conclude with a discussion on which of the two categories is more appropriate as a defense. The injury: Bobby Jones, a high school senior on the varsity football team had been playing junior high and high school football for the last 6 years. During one of the final games of the season, despite the coach's explicit directions to buckle his football helmet, Bobby failed to do so."
Abstract This paper discusses the tort of negligence as part of the American legal system, focusing in particular on negligence in coaching. The author gives three example court cases where coaches were put on the stand, accused of negligent supervision, and negligent instruction and then highlights the law governing this area of negligence with these examples. The paper also analyzes when facts of a case demonstrate improper supervision. Since analyzing cases of coaching negligence is a grey area, the paper cautions that parents and students are obliged to understand the possible consequences of participation in sports.
From the Paper "Liability for civil wrongs, such as the tort of negligence, is a prevalent and crucial part of the American legal system. Negligence is defined as behavior by a person divergent from what an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person would have done in the same situation. Private parties must have recourse for redressing civil infractions against their persons and property; otherwise parties would be tempted to take matters into their own hands. Conversely, there must be a firm burden of proof for establishing a negligence case, or defendants could be harassed with baseless lawsuits to no end."
Abstract This paper explains a hypothetical legal case in which Jack must represent himself; Jill is suing Jack for negligence because she had coffee at Jack's office that was scalding hot and burned her mouth and face. The paper reviews the details of the significant precedent case of Stella Liebeck versus McDonald's in which she sued them for negligence after she opened a cup of coffee, held between her knees, spilling the coffee and giving her third degree burns. The paper outlines the elements of negligence cases to determine the most effective means for Jack's response, which is thought to be contributory negligence.
From the Paper "You can assert to the judge and jury that, in light of these findings in the McDonald's coffee case, your coffee pot maker is no hotter than coffee pot makers in other offices or homes. You us a regular coffee maker just like everyone else, and are under no pressure to sell a certain amount of coffee daily or package that coffee accordingly. The only possible argument anyone may pose is to say that in your line of office work you are regularly giving people coffee, which is a fair assumption."
Abstract This paper presents a general framework that explores aspects of the law and then presents a comprehensive analysis to highlight how aspects of strict liability affect activities related to optimal care levels and most importantly how strict liability relates to negligence.
Table of Contents:
Abstract
Introduction
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
The Efficiency of Strict Liability: Negligence versus Strict Liability
Negligence versus Strict Liability: Legal, Economic, and Social Perspectives
From the Paper "There is however, arguments that strict liability as a criminal process can lead to an unbalanced and unfair legal system, since it imposes guilt without due process. Is this a violation of individuals Constitutional Right and is imposing some social value or process on their activities or behavior? A typical example in many US is related to statutory rape - that is, this is considered a strict liability offence in many states. That is, not knowing the actual age of a minor is irrelevant in many states and the accused can be prosecuted and convicted irrespective of the details behind the case."
Tags: hazardous negligence defective, mens rea, optimal care
Abstract The evolution of product liability in terms of the law of negligence represents one of the more fascinating developments in tort law over the past two centuries. In the 21st century the issue of product liability is particularly prominent in the public consciousness with the increasing size and economic importance of the industrialized consumer economy. This essay focuses on the law of negligence with particular reference to the issue of product liability.
Abstract This paper presents a case study discussing negligence law. It describes the particulars of the case and then lists the points that are necessary in order for someone to be found negligent. The paper describes the courses of action that can be taken by both parties and what their defenses would be. It then describes the likely outcome in this particular case.
From the Paper "As said before, because there is a legitimate question as to Giselle's employer's fault, the liability insurance company will most likely decide that it is in their best interest to continue to defend the case. Their next move will be to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, which as the court to dismiss Monty's action do to it lacking any debatable issue of fact. Monty will have a time to respond to the Motion. After the judge receives all the moving papers, he or she will issue an opinion."
This paper looks at the issue that UK courts reserve the right to decide that even accepted medical practice may be negligent, yet seldom seem to use it.
4,000 words (approx. 16 pages), 6 sources, 2001, $ 108.95
Abstract This paper looks at the topic of court cases which dealt with negligence by medical institutions or persons. It explains the definition of the law that medical services have the duty to provide as best care as possible. The paper brings down numerous cases as examples.
From the paper:
"Medical litigation cases have been rising rapidly with patients? awareness of the laws designed to protect them against harm from those who they should be able to trust the most, their doctors and dentists. The most widely litigated issue us that of medical negligence. The term negligence refers to a various failures including the failure to guard against the risks of harm to others. An example of negligence is professional malpractice where professional standards of practice are not met. Negligence can be filed in two ways criminal and civil. The standard of guilt is the same for both of them, however the burden of proof is different. In a civil case, the plaintiff must prove the balance of probabilities, where in a criminal negligence the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt [Kian, 2001]."
Abstract The paper describes malpractice lawsuits as the threat of being held financially and professionally accountable for some observed and possibly human error in a high stress occupation with urgent conditions. The paper lists the four prerequisite elements in the specific legal standard of negligence that has evolved to prove culpability and notes how contrary to common perceptions, the law regarding negligence does tend towards protecting nurses. The paper discusses the use of settlements and how they make nurses look guilty or negligent at a level which is very likely disproportionate and unfair. The paper further discusses how hospitals' cost efficiency standards may limit a nurse's ability to do her best and leave her more open to malpractice suits. The paper concludes with the hope that negligence suits will serve the purpose that they were originally meant for: to protect and compensate patients for nurses that are truly negligent.
From the Paper "Nursing malpractice is primarily a legal issue, and a legal interpretation in its current form. This is not to say that it exists only in legal context, but to assert that malpractice in society has evolved through its definition by legal standards, and has become relevant to the workplace of the nurse because the legal ramifications, where the nurse can be held culpable for her action, or lack of actions, that result in the death, injury or failure to recover from a patient she treats. It brings into play a whole other level of liability and credibility for the nurse, who is not a legal expert, merely a public servant who has made a personal commitment to a social calling where she is attempting to do their best to heal and save those who have been injured or fallen sick before they ever see her."
Abstract This paper examines how injuries and deaths that take place at work are often categorized as occupational hazards and fatalities, and one main and profoundly dangerous branch of this larger category is known as workplace violence. It discusses how workplace violence is now increasingly being viewed as a corporate liability because it can often jeopardize the lives of the workers and how, in some cases, such as that of negligent hiring, charges can be brought against the employers. It studies the issue of workplace violence and how it can become an ethical responsibility of the employers to protect their workers from such acts of violence.
Outline
Introduction
How Grave is the Issue
Negligent Hiring
What Employers Need to Do?
Prevention Programs and Other Strategies
From the Paper "Negligent hiring is another very common cause of workplace violence and employers can directly responsible for any injury or death resulting from this practice. This is because workplace violence due to negligent hiring has become a common phenomenon where a violent worker would attack his colleagues when things do not go his way. This is in fact the greatest cause of violence on the job, which can result in serious fatalities. Employers can then be held responsible if they failed to check a worker's background when they recruited him. Usually employers are required to thoroughly check the reasons why a worker was removed from his previous job but if the present employers fail to do so, they can be held responsible when that worker becomes violent at workplace and hurts a colleague or client."
Tags:negligent, hiring, worker, employer, corporate, liability, life
Abstract The paper explores liability issues in high schools in the US, including safety at school, unintentional torts, liability and negligence, supervision duties, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and student record confidentiality. The paper shows how these high school safety laws are inclusive of many scenarios and provide extensive regulation and legislation focused toward protection of students in today's high schools.
Outline:
Objective
Introduction
School Safety
Unintentional Torts
Liability and Negligence Supervision Duties
FERPA
Student Record Confidentiality
Summary and Conclusion
From the Paper "There are many laws that address safety in schools in the United States. The first of these is the 'Gun-Free Zones Act of 1996', which makes is a crime under federal law to possess a firearm in a school zone. School zone means either in or on the school grounds or within 1,000 feet of the school grounds. The 'Schoolyard Statute' relates to the sale or possession of illegal drugs in or near schools' and is a law that "...doubles the standard penalties for the first violation of federal laws prohibiting the possession, distribution, or manufacture of controlled substances in or on or within one thousand feet of a public school." (for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities, 2006) Environmental modifications of schools are a requirement of law relating to elimination of blind spots, areas that are not well lit including entrances as well as requiring certain security to deter violence at schools."
Abstract This paper discusses some important issues in connection with workplace fatalities and occupational injuries. Tens of hundreds of employees expose themselves to serious health and safety risks as they work in unsafe conditions in country's various industries. In such cases, companies are required to pay compensation to employees who get injured at work but in more serious cases, employers can be charged with murder if it is found that a certain worker's death occurred due to management's negligence and inability to comply by OSHA guidelines.
From the Paper "Business ethics have become a major issue of debate in American corporate world because it has been found that in several cases, occupational injuries occur not due to the negligence of the employees but more because of the inappropriate safety measures. This is one reason why many people are of the view that death due to workplace injuries should be termed homicide and employers must be charged with murder. While not every person would agree with that, at least those in the legal profession maintain that employers can be charged with murder if available evidence suggests that the reason behind death of an employee was unsafe working environment."
Abstract This paper examines the enormous environmental disaster of the Exxon Valdez oil spill into the Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The paper provides the history of the Exxon Company, a detailed description of the accident and the following environmental cleanup. It describes the criminal negligence of the company and complete public relations failure.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Situation Analysis
Burning Mechanical Cleanup Chemical Dispersants
Effects on the Environment
Government Action
Exxon's Reaction
Conclusion
From the Paper "The Exxon Valdez, a tanker loaded with oil from the shipping terminal in Valdez, Alaska, ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound (in the Gulf of Alaska) at 12:04am, on March 24, 1989. At the helm was of Gregory Cousins, Third Mate, who was not licensed to pilot the ship through Prince William Sound, whose waters were considered treacherous. Joseph Hazelwood, the captain of the ship, was apparently asleep below deck. Third Mate Cousins had tried to dodge floating ice, performing a series of strange right turns. When the ship hit Bligh Reef, its hull ruptured and much of the cargo spilled. In the next few days, the oil spread rapidly, causing the deaths of thousands of sea birds, sea otters, and other wildlife. It covered the coastline with oil from the ship resulting of the wreck and eventually contamination of marine life; the fishing season in the sound was halted for several years.
Abstract This paper discusses the issue of the economic effectiveness of tort law in the common law legal system of England and Wales, as applied to medical and clinical negligence and malpractice cases. It looks at how in response to economic concerns and a continual rise in cases, an examination of the consideration of a proposed no-fault alternative to the current system is underway. It explores the basis of the current system, the impetus for change and the characteristics of no-fault reform as experienced by other countries and its pros and cons. The principal aim of tort reform is to limit the legal or financial exposure of the NHS (National Health System) to liability for damages and to streamline the process of compensation for plaintiffs.
Outline
The United Kingdom
Introduction
Statistics Regarding Claims
The National Health System
Obstacles to Due Process
The Case for Reform
The Regulatory Environment
The Rising Cost of Litigation
Lord Woolf's Reforms
More Cost Controls
The United States
Introduction
The St. Paul's Pullout
The Insurance Industry
Tort Reform In America
Fleeing Physicians
Statistics for Error, Injury and Death
The Call for Reform in 2003: A Familiar Refrain
The United States Situation, in Summary
New Zealand Case Studies
The Swedish Scheme
A Comparison: Which System is Better?
First: Underlying Differences
Talking Tort: American Peculiarities
Americans Consider No-Fault
Britain Considers No-Fault
Conclusion
Works Cited
Appendix A
From the Paper "When St. Paul?s, the largest writer of medical malpractice policies, ceased to offer the coverage in 2001-2002, it was the a consequence of the attention that had been focused on the administration of this type of coverage. A 1989 investigation of St. Paul's and one other insurer initiated by Michael Hatch, then Commerce Commissioner of Minnesota, revealed that over a six-year period premiums had increased 300 percent while claims had not. Hatch was quoted as saying the reason for the increase was: "Because they had the opportunity to do it. There was a limited market. People need coverage. The companies knew they had a corner on it, and they raised their rates accordingly." In response, a group of surgeons from Charleston jointly sued St. Paul for "grossly poor management". St. Paul's consequently dropped that type of coverage as part of its portfolio."
Abstract This paper shows how of all crimes manslaughter appears to afford most difficulties of definition, for it concerns homicide in so many and so varying conditions. It looks at how liability for manslaughter can arise from an unintentional killing caused by negligence ie. the omission of a duty to take care. It deals with the definition of manslaughter, the appropriate test and the jury direction. It also discusses the creation of a new head of common law manslaughter, reckless manslaughter and the implications of this turning of the law. Through examples of court cases, it analyses how proposed reforms will not only introduce much needed clarity but will allow the law to operate much more effectively as a mechanism of censure by reducing the net of liability to those truly responsible for the deaths they cause.
From the Paper "Lord Roskill in Seymour , took recklessness to be the most suitable term to express the kind of culpability required for this head of manslaughter. In this case the trial judge had directed the jury that they should convict if they were satisfied that he D had caused death, and had been reckless in doing so, recklessness here having the meaning attributed to in Lawrence . The House of Lords held, dismissing D's appeal, that the elements of common law manslaughter and motor manslaughter under the Road Traffic Act 1972 were the same, and the direction in R v. Lawrence was appropriate, save that it was also appropriate to point out to the jury that the risk of death being caused by the manner of the driving must be very high. The prosecution might charge either offence, but if both were charged, the prosecution must elect, upon which charge to proceed."
Abstract This paper explains that, in February of 1972, a dam built of coal waste refuse collapsed, unleashing a torrent of water and waste, sludge derived from coal-mining and coal-washing operations, killing 25 people and leaving the four thousand survivors homeless, their lives devastated, and their personal properties destroyed. The author recounts that Washington DC-based Arnold and Porter, for which Gerald Stern worked, took on the case; Stern's work as an advocate for disenfranchised minority citizens of the American Deep South made him an ideal and idealistic lawyer representing the survivors of the Buffalo Creek disaster. The paper relates the two main aspects to the Buffalo Creek Disaster lawsuit, which Stern won,: (1) The plaintiffs had to prove that Pittston was not simply careless or negligent, but was actually recklessly responsible for the disaster; and (2) Stern had to come up with monetary figures for his plaintiffs, assessing the damages due to them should the lawsuit be successful.
From the Paper "Following the disaster, which occurred in a section of rural Logan County, West Virginia, the coal company blamed nature, calling the dam failure an "act of God." This vague term was meant to assuage the survivors of the disaster and ease the pain of losing their loved ones and friends. However, the collapse of a waste water dam was obviously no "act of God" and it became apparent that the only way to prevent the coal company from getting away with their gross negligence was to sue and sue big. Stern had hoped to file criminal as well as civil charges against Pittston, the New York corporation that owned the Buffalo Mining Company. Although the Buffalo Mining Company was itself the owner of the dam, Stern reasoned that it would be far simpler and more effective to directly sue Pittston. Part of this decision was based on what Pittston describes as "piercing the corporate veil.""
