A lawsuit involving one or more tort claims - Case Study Example

Law, Case Study   A Lawsuit Involving One Or More Tort Claims point the of the article, the of the publication in which it appeared and the date of publication. The Article title is “A Factory’s Closing Focuses Attention on Tort Reform” and was published in The New York Times on October 4, 2012. The article was written by Clifford Krauss.Article Summary (2 points): Provide a summary of the news story, with emphasis on the facts. This article focuses on the various liability cases surrounding a gasoline can manufacturing firm from Oklahoma known as Blitz.

Apparently, the 46-years old, 117-employ manufacturing firm closed its operations due to bankruptcy as a result of steep legal costs, amounting to over $30 million, from liability lawsuits brought by dozens of casualties of explosions linked to the usage of the firms-Blitz-cans. The article mentions and discusses-albeit not into details-two of the suits that apparently are the only ones that made it to court. One of these cases is the case in Texas in 2008 involving Mr. Brody Green’s mother who sued Blitz for liability for the death of Mr.

Green from an explosion of Blitz manufactured can when he poured gasoline into fire. Blitz won this case but was later ordered by the court to pay $250,000 to Mr. Green’s mother for failing to provide documents related to flame arresters. The other case involved a father, Mr. Calder, of a 2-year old girl in Utah, who sued Blitz in 2010 for damages resulting from the death of his daughter when a can exploded after he, David Calder, was pouring gasoline on the flame. In this case, the court ordered Blitz to pay David Calder $4 million.

The article also mentions one case among 36 other cases against Blitz that are still open; the case involves Chad Funchess, a volunteer fire fighter, from South Carolina whose half body was seriously burned when a can exploded in 2007, South Carolina when filling up a chain saw.Generally, these suits claim that the Blitz manufactured cans were predisposed to flashback explosions resulting from gasoline vapors followed the trail of the vapor into the container and ignited. Therefore, they argue that, Blitz ought to have installed flame arrester shields at the containers mouth in order to prevent flashback explosions.

Part 2, What Kind of Case Is It? This is a case of tort-liability lawsuit, in which plaintiffs are suing the defendant for damages, asking the court to award the compensation on the grounds that the defendant’s negligence resulted on injuries to them.(2 points) Is this case public or private? Explain your answer. This is a private case because it is governed by private law, in this case law of tort; it is a case concerning two individuals-Plaintiffs v. Blitz-in a legal system. (2 points) Is this case in state court or federal court?

These cases are under the state court although some of the cases-the case of Mr. Green’s mother v. Blitz and that of David Calder v. Blitz-were heard a United States District Court, which are federal courts.Part 3, Jurisdiction: (3 points) Explain why this court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case. As for the cases, Mr. Green’s mother v. Blitz and that of David Calder v. Blitz, Chad Funchess v. Blitz were heard in federal courts because the courts had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases as the plaintiffs in the said two cases did not share state of citizenship with the defendant.

The state courts have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the other cases because this type of case-tort case is not under the law that is exclusively put under the jurisdiction of any case(2 points) Explain why this particular court has jurisdiction over each plaintiff. The federal courts-United States District courts-had jurisdiction over David Calder, Mr. Green’s Mother, and Chad Funchess because the plaintiffs and the defendant shared no state citizenship and the amount being sought by the plaintiffs in damages exceeds the amount, $75,000, set by congress.(2 points) Explain why this particular court has jurisdiction over each defendant.

The federal courts-United States District courts-had jurisdiction over Blitz U.S.A Inc. because the defendant and the plaintiffs shared no state citizenship and the amount being sought by the plaintiffs in damages exceeds the amount, $75,000, set by congress.(2 points) At what stage in the legal process is the case? (Refer to the diagram in the Chapter 2 Lecture called Phases of a Civil Lawsuit) Mr. Green’s mother v. Blitz was resolved and has been closed, that of David Calder v. Blitz was concluded and the plaintiff awarded compensation to the tune of $4 million; however, the defendant is appealing the court’s decision.

The case of Chad Funchess v. Blitz has been stayed since the company-the defendant filed for bankruptcy, therefore, it is still open, and so are the other 36 cases.Work CitedKrauss, Clifford. “A Factory’s Closing Focuses Attention on Tort Reform.” The New York Times 4 Oct. 2012. Print.