Anyone of these Court Cases to Study:
Use the University Library to study the following court cases:
Nunez v. A-T Financial Information Inc., 957 F.Supp 438 (1997). Focus areas: defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and good faith.
Lindsey v. Miami Development Corp. 689 S.W.2d 856 (Tenn. 1985). Focus area: negligent tort.
Sowards v. Norbar, Inc., 605 N.E.2d 468 (Ohio App. 1992). Focus area: privacy.
Peterson v. Air Line Pilots Association, 759 F.2d 1161 (1985)(S.Ct. cert. later denied). Focus areas: blacklisting, interference with contractual relationship, and effect of labor agreement.
Bolton v. Minnesota Dept. of Human Services, 527 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). Focus areas: intentional infliction of emotional distress, and good faith.
An Example of another student work:
In the case of Lindsey v. Miami Development Corp. 689 S.W.2d 856 (Tenn. 1985);
The issue is whether or not the defendant was negligent to render proper aid to the plaintiff’s daughter when she suffered a head injury after jumping from the balcony to the stone steps below. The plaintiff’s position is that the negligence on the part of the defendant to render, or obtain, proper care lead to the death of his daughter.
Further, the plaintiff claims the defendant had a duty to render proper aid due to the relationship between the defendant and the decedent. The defendant had invited the decedent to an activity at a property owned by the defendant and therefore placed the responsibility on the defendant for the proper care after the accident.
Negligent Tort: “From French for “wrong,” a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category.” (http://dictionary.law.com)
Duty of care: “A requirement that a person act toward others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use. If a person’s actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.” (http://dictionary.law.com)
The fact that the accident occurred on the defendant’s property, during an event hosted by the defendant would lead to the conclusion that the defendant was responsible for rendering proper care to the decedent after the accident. The testimony from others at the event that the defendant stated to “wait a while” before calling for emergency assistance would indicate that proper care was not rendered. However, there is no proof that this delay either caused the death of the decedent or lead to the eventual death.
Because the accident occurred on the defendant’s property, during an event hosted by the defendant leads to the conclusion that the defendant was responsible for rendering proper care to the decedent after the accident. Additionally, the testimony from others at the event that the defendant stated to “wait a while” before calling for emergency assistance indicates that proper care was not rendered in a timely fashion. The lack of proof that this delay either caused or lead to the death would then absolve the defendant from liability for the eventual death of the decedent.
The ruling should be for the plaintiff in the neglect to render proper aid on the part of the defendant, and for the defendant on the part of the negligence actually resulting in the death of his daughter.