Torts and Personal Injury Law - Assignment Example

DRAFT QSN What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) The court, after of the complainant, granted him the immunity claimed because he is not the manufacture, supplier and seller of the.in comparison with other case of similar type but dealing with cigarette where one was selling without warning the consumer of the danger involved in smoking, he was not charged of any breached of law since he was not the manufacture, seller or supplier. To add on that the law that prohibit selling without warning the danger in smocking preempted the warning to the consumer thus offering an immunity to the supplier to an extend that he is not chargeable of any wrong doing. QSN 2 According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Any party is allowed to move in for summary judgment. The judge may also decide his own to initiate a summary judgment. This not like the partial motion where to discuss information pertaining the affidavits or the interrogative answering of question but instead the court usually carry oral arguments where the court will considered all the evidence that are admissible at the trial under the rules of evidence to support the motion that will be presented in the court. The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trial that involve party. The family should have established two facts before prevailing a motion for summary judgment. One there must be no genuine issue of material fact and two the other party must be entitled to judgment as matter of law. Where the procedural device used during litigation should expeditiously disposed of a case without trial QSN 3.Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) FACTS There was no genuine issues of material loss that warranted for the since the only incidence was Evelyn burning on her right leg by the coffee when she tested if it to see if it was hot. Cristopher was also burned and treated for with secondary degree burns. It was Nedel who sued the owner of the Burgher King on behalf of Cristopher for the claim that the coffee served was defectively made without prior warning of it being hot to an extend it can burn. The owner of the Burgher King went for the summary judgment to avoid unnecessary trial and owing to the fact that the case forwarded full filled the two inclusion criteria of a summary judgment i.e. No material fact and the parties were entitle to judgment as matter of law. Burgher King were granted a summary judgment. The Nedel appealed that the summary judgment was improperly granted. King Burgher they are immune to product liability due to the fact they are not the manufacture, supplier or the seller of the product in question. QSN 4.According to the case, why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a tort and by legal definition is known as controversial cause of action. It goes ahead to affirm that one has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual. Negation of this call of duty constitute a tort that is termed as intentional infliction of emotional distress that there is no need to prove the intent. In this case, going by definition reasonable care was provided by the Kings Burger to the extent that this tort is not applicable in any form or shape. The court approved strict liability tort where the manufactures, sellers and the supplier are held accountable of the injuries made by the product formed. QSN 5.According to the case, why didnt the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims? (5 points) For a case to full fill the criteria of summary judgment where there is no unnecessary trial, two legal aspects must be critically put in consideration. One the parties involved in the case are entitled to judgment as matter of law. Here evidence has to be provided and the procedure of the litigation is upheld and done expeditiously to the later without reprove. Secondly, in the case the matter of dispute that take the parties to law court must have an aspect of material fact. Considering the two inclusion criteria of the cases with summary judgment ramification the court in their own wisdom so it unfit to do it that way because the dispute had no material fact and the King Burgher are not responsible for manufacturing, supplying or selling of the coffee. QSN 6.Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not? (5 points) Strongly agree with the decision of the court to expunge the request of the applicant for the case to be summary judgment. In addition the case being dropped based on the assertion of the King Burgher was most wise ruling the court did because in real sense the King Burgher are not the manufacturers or the supplier or the seller of the coffee to give out the warning that the afflicted family demanded thus in true wisdom they are not accountable. I disagree that the fact that Christopher suffered second-degree burns is sufficient to establish a reasonable existence of issue of material facts mention earlier. The fact that the product caused injury does not mean that the material the product is defective. In no way can a manufacturer make his or her product accident proof or fool proof for his or her consumers. A the name and citation of the case (5 points) This is a case that involved negligence of emotional distress. The parties involved in the dispute was Paugh v Hanks. Negligent infliction of emotional distress involve a claim by one party creating actionable emotional distress in another. B the name of the court which decided the case (3 points); The court that decided on this dispute was the Ohio Supreme Court C. the year of the decision (2 points); The year 1983 D the facts of the case (5 points); In this shepherd zed case Evelyn and Paul Nadel claim of emotional distress. The evidence of the claim is that she is worried. This come after the divorce that has taken place. Evelyn is not affected to the extend of taking treatment over the same. Paul on the other side is on treatment of depression and stress emanating from the divorce E the issue of the case (5 points); The issue in the case is as whether there was enough occurrence in the case to categories it as emotion distress. Is it true that with the absence of treatment of Evelyn that there was emotional distress. Was the case lacking the material fact and the judgment as matter of law for it to qualify summary judgment? This are the issue that the stalks the case. F the “decision” of the case (5 points); The court decided to grant summary judgment with the respect of the claim raised. This meant that the parties had not to go through unnecessary trials because the case did not meet the minimum threshold to avoid to be a summary judgment. H the principle of law the case was used (cited) for in the case (5 points); and Emotional harm damages are a part of most personal claim that are usually made. It’s a claim that result from “hurting the feeling” In this case three thing were observed that is the defendants conduct must have caused some kind of physical contact or impact. The plaintiff in this case must have been in danger zone of defendant negligent act and final principle that the court used is that the dispute must have been foreseeable that the defendants negligence would have caused defendant negligent conduct would have caused the plaintiff of this case emotional harm. The court based on this to make the ruling where the dispute of the two did not meet the principle hence the case ended up to be summary judgment G following the directions in the library, download a Word document copy of the case, and include your name in the “note” section of the download. Attach a copy of the document with your assignment this week. (10 points) (Your name must be in the automatically populated “note” area for full points for this.). REFERENCE Abele, J. R. (2009). Emotional distress: Proving damages. Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Pub. Co. Hadley, E. C., Laws, E. J., & Murphy, K. (2010). Effective summary judgment motions. Arlington, Va: Dewey Publications. How to Shepardize: Your guide to legal research using Shepards Citations on LEXIS.COM, in print, on CD-ROM. (2009). Dayton, Ohio: Lexis Pub. Russell, S. J., Norvig, P., & Davis, E. (2010). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kallay, T. (2012). Conceptual approach to california summary judgment. S.l.: Iuniverse Com. Buckley, W. R., & Okrent, C. J. (2010). Torts and personal injury law. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson/Delmar Learning. Read More