Kiesau v. Buchanan County & Davis - Case Study Example

Bantz altered Kiesau’s photograph obtained from the K-9 program website (in which she was originally in uniform and standing with a police dog next to a Sheriff’s department). Bantz mailed the altered photograph, depicting Kiesau’s breasts, to several recipients.

Evidence presented in the second case included recommendations by Lieutenant Furness, to Davis, proposing termination of Batz as a canine handler. Evidence by Captain Hepke also proposed disciplinary actions against Batz. Davis disregarded all the complaints about Batz as submitted by different parties. In the first instance, a jury returned a ruling that favored Kiesau and offered her $ 160, 000 as compensation. For the second instance, the court ruled against Kiesau by dismissing the negligent supervision and retention claims against Buchanan County & Davis.                                         

Rule: In this case, Buchanan County & Davis (Appellees) violated laws that disallow negligent hiring and retention under Iowa State Laws (Center 541).

Argument: Under the laws on negligent hiring and retention applicable in Iowa State, Buchanan County & Davis, were liable for wrongful conduct by facilitating Bazt’s tortious actions through failure to act on several recommendations and complaints.

Conclusion: The case involved claims of negligent supervision and retention against Buchanan County & Davis.

PC 8, SS, Grandchamp (1947).

Facts: Ammonium Nitrate is a strong oxidizing agent that can facilitate the massive combustion of combustible materials.

            Ammonium nitrate can explore if confined under exciting conditions of heat and pressure.

Issues: Were the Republic of France and the French lines liable for the resultant injuries owing to obvious laxity in rules and regulation on smoking at the port loading and offloading bay backing constitution of approximate cause?

Issue: were the superseding secondary causes probable.

Rule: Negligence is an actionable tort. Both definite and most probable causes are essential defenses for negligence recovery.

Rule: If the subsequent action, force, or occurrences that are evident as direct contributors to the injuries suffered by the plaintiff were not probable, many juries hold that it is an intervening cause. Subsequently, it pardons the defendant of liability from dangers that trace back directly from the superseding cause.

Complainant the US government reason that the French cargo ship crew did not task up, the complainant argued that the crew should have foreseen the risk of explosion from the transported FGAN, which is in normal regulations set by the governing bodies on transportation of hazardous materials deem fire hazard. The ammonium nitrate gas is explosive if exposed to combusting materials. With this knowledge, the French line cargo service should have defined rules that regulate fire existence, smoking, and safety on leakages for the onboard crew. 

The complainant can also base their argument on the secondary liabilities; because the explosion was foreseeable, the intervening causes after the fire do not pardon the defendant from responsibility. The defendant is liable for the secondary events occurring because of the direct cause affecting the plaintiff. French line, therefore, is responsible for all materials damaged afterward.

The defendant could make a response that failing to predict the long stretch effect of the explosion is pardonable because the cargo was only transporting fire hazards. The explosion and its intervening effects are not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. With that, therefore, the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries is the fire that is occurring because of third-party intervention relieving the plaintiff’s liabilities.

Conclusion:  Fire and explosion constitute actual and proximate causes of the plaintiff’s injuries. French line cargo service, therefore, is liable for all the damages resulting from laxity in enforcing safety rules.