The case briefs - Essay Example

The case briefs Introduction This work presents a selection of four case briefs. The aim of the paper is to provide a concise and brief presentation of the cases. It also gives the history of the cases, the rules and their disposition as given by the judges that presided over the same (Bast, 2012). These are the main components that are included in the briefs bellow. The case briefs Case 1: Wollery Delgado, plaintiff and appellant v. Trax Bar& grill defendant and appellant. History: The trial court had awarded compensations to the plaintiff for the physical injuries that were sustained from an attack by a mob on the premises of the defendant. The appeal court reversed this ruling. Facts: The plaintiff was suing for compensation for injuries received from an attack at the defendants premises based on the premise owners premises liability theory. Issue: The legal question, in this case, dealt with the question of ownership liability resulting from their premises safe for patrons in light of foreseeable dangers. Issue: The court felt that the defendant had a duty of care and the responsibility of upholding the safety of the clients in any foreseeable situation that would cause harm. Rule: Under the special relations doctrine, a tavern owner is required to not only limit their responsibility to the burdensome provision of security but also to provide assistance in times of emergencies at the premise. Opinion& application: The majority reached its holding after examination of the facts surrounding the foresee ability of the event and the determination of the responsibility of the owners in special relations doctrine. While the rule of ownership liability could exempt the owners from providing burdensome security within an around the premise, the special relations doctrine still raised issues that would make the owners liable. Under the special relations doctrine, the owners of the premises are required to not only protect but also to warn the patrons of any imminent criminal activities. They are also to provide assistance in case of an emergency at their premises. As such issues that surround the liability of the owners of premises under the special relations, doctrine needs to be effectively dealt with properly before the final judgment is provided. Disposition: The Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case. Case 2: Disabled Rights Action Committee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Las Vegas Events, Inc.; University Of Nevada, Las Vegas, Thomas and Mack Center; Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Defendants-Appellees. History: The district court had felt that the private entities, that is, Events and Cowboys had no part in ensuring the compliance to public accommodation standards. Further, the court argued that the ownership did not stage the events giving them no case to answer. Facts: The plaintiff alleged that the physically challenged members of the society have been subjected to poor services, discrimination at the centre and further charged higher ticket fees as compared to other people. As such, the plaintiff sought an injunction preventing the defendant from using the facility until it became compliant to ADA. Issue: The question was whether apart from the owners of the premise, Events and Cowboys could be enjoined in the suit to ensure compliance with public accommodation of the physically challenged. Rule: In public spaces accommodation, the owners or the management of the premise is expected to provide assistance to the physically challenged members of the society. This accommodation is done by providing special seating and access according to article three of the disability act. Application: In this case, neither the owners of the premise nor the private operators made this consideration. However, even in privately owned property, the operators who use the buildings for public purposes have the duty to make the places accessible to all under the public accommodation regulation. As such, both the ownership and the operators under a contractual agreement are required to ensure compliance to the standards. Disposition: The Court reversed the dismissal of the action against events, and the inclusion of the owners, University system, as indispensable party citing the application of title three of public accommodation. Disposition: The case was remanded for further action. Case 3 Mr. and Mrs. D. F. Dold, Mr. and Mrs. Leo Manthei, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Outrigger Hotel and Hawaii Hotels Operating Company, Limited, Defendants-Appellees. History: the lower court had awarded the plaintiffs compensatory compensation for damages resulting from the innkeeper’s inability to accommodate them upon reservation. Facts: Mr. and Mrs. D. F. Dold, Mr. and Mrs. Leo Manthei had made a reservation for 18th to the 23rd of February in 1968 through the agents of the Hawaii Hotels, "Outrigger". Upon arrival at the hotel on the same date, the plaintiffs were refused accommodation by the hotel due to oversubscription. They then prevented outrigger from making profits from their bookings by paying in cash for alternative accommodation since they paid for the same. Issue: The court was to decide whether the defendant participated in a wanton breach of contract and was liable to pay for the punitive damages apart from the contractual remedy. Rule: Contractual action is normally accompanied by a recovery of the punitive damages. In some cases, where there are established tortuous damages, the complainant is awarded punitive compensations. Application: The overbooking by the defendant showed that their participation in the activities that led to the disappointment of their clients was wanton and reckless. This reckless action and breach of the contract require served as the basis for the award of the damages experienced by the clients. However, the question of tort is not applicable in this case. The reason for its inapplicability is that the damages were restricted to the loss of cash. The court could not establish any grounds to award compensation for tortuous damages. Disposition: The judgment was affirmed by the court. Case four: Stoner V. California History: the trial court found the accused guilty of the offence by admitting evidence obtained without a search warrant. On certiorari to the court of appeal, the decision was affirmed. Facts: The accused had been convicted of robbery with violence based on evidence obtained from a search in his hotel room. The search was conducted without the issue of a search warrant by any court. It was based on the investigating officers' findings that linked the accused to the robbery. At the time of the search, the accused was away from the hotel room, and the consent of the hotel employee in charge was given to the officers to search the room. Issue: the legal question here deals with the admissibility of the evidence in a trial and the legality of evidence that is obtained without a search warrant. Rule: In performing a search, the investigating officers should convince the jury of the connection and relevance of the search in obtaining evidence to be used in a trial. Application: the officers who were investigating the case did not follow the correct procedure to obtain evidence to be used for conviction. The court also relied upon this unlawfully obtained evidence to convict the defendant. The permission to conduct the search was granted by the hotelkeeper who is a junior employee at the premise at the time the accused was not in the same location. The result of this action is that the evidence produced are not an incident to the arrest of the accused that happened two days later at a different location and setting. In a contemporaneous setting, the evidence could be admitted but, in this case, the absence of the accused changes the outcome. Disposition: The verdict was produced from a trial that admitted illegal evidence and as such the decision of the lower court remanded. Reference Bast, C., & Hawkins, M. (2012). Foundations of Legal Research and Writing. Cengage Learning. Read More