Palsgraf‚ Respondent‚ v. The Long Island Railroad Company‚ Appellant [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL] Court of Appeals of New York 248 N.Y. 339; 162 N.E. 99; 1928 N.Y. LEXIS 1269; 59 A.L.R. 1253 February 24‚ 1928‚ Argued May 29‚ 1928‚ Decided Facts: The plaintiff Helen Palsgraf was standing at the platform station of Long Island Railroad Company after buying her ticket and waiting for her train. Suddenly‚ a man carrying a package rushed to catch another train that was moving away from the platform. He jumped
Premium Law
via proximity‚ or a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff. This is known as the ‘neighbour principle’ ‚ which relies on combination of proximity and a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. In Victoria‚ the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) (the ‘Act’) is used to determine and administer negligence claims and damages. Section 48 The first component of a negligence claim is the alleged existence of a duty of care to the plaintiff
Premium Law Tort Negligence
of New Jersey‚ Decided August 5‚ 2010 FACTS Fitness center member Gina Stelluti sustained various injuries while participating in a fitness class. The plaintiff in this case claimed that her injuries were the result of the defendant’s negligence in regards to failing to repair the broken exercise bike‚ which had caused the injuries to the plaintiff. The defendant had filed for a motion for summery. The original trial court had granted that request. This request was granted due to a liability contract
Premium Tort Law Common law
Preliminary Research for Affirmative Defense The plaintiff is more than 50% negligent for his own injuries because he was not wearing a helmet therefore comparative negligence applies. To support the claim that the defendant was not wearing a helmet I believe that the seatbelt safety law can be presented to support the claim. Augst 2nd‚ 1985 the case of Hukill v. DiGregorio the court deemed the supporting claim of seatbelt as inadmissible based on the fact that seatbelts were not mandatory. In
Premium Speed limit Law Seat belt
that give rise to the lawsuit were that Mr. Class (The Plaintiff) who was a former football player at Towson University was severely injured. During a routine practice‚ the plaintiff collapsed on the field resulting in a heat stroke and liver failure. The plaintiff survived his life-threatening injuries by receiving a liver transplant and extensive rehabilitation. However‚ after the plaintiff’s successful recovery and rehabilitation‚ the plaintiff tried to reinstate into the Towson University’s football
Premium American football Concussion National Football League
C.P. Cuyahoga Cty. OH 1961 1. Facts of the Case The plaintiff in this case is Central NY Basketball‚ Inc.‚ who owns the Syracuse Nationals of the National Basketball league (NBA). There are two defendants: Richard Barnett‚ a #1 draft choice of the plaintiff in 1959‚ and Cleveland Basketball Club‚ Inc.‚ who owns the Cleveland Pipers of the American Basketball league (ABL). The defendant‚ Barnett‚ is currently under contract with the plaintiff. 2. Procedure This case was heard in the Court of Common
Premium National Basketball Association
To: Prof. Lang From: A. Foster Date: November 23‚ 2010 Re: Smith’s defenses to dog bite Questions Presented: 1) Under Florida Statute Section 767.04 which sets the defenses in which a dog owner can avoid liability due to injury caused by a dog bite‚ can dog owner avoid liability by using the defense of provocation for injuries caused by a dog bite when the owner’s dog bit an 8 year old child‚ when said minor while dressed in a cat costume came onto our client’s property‚ noticed client’s Yorkshire
Premium Law Negligence Legal terms
evidences presented. They are representing themselves and not a private solicitor. Both the plaintiff and defendant act appropriately with each other and await their turn to speak and when they speak they stand up. The plaintiff is asking the court to order a subpoena on National Australia bank in respect to Mr. Erkan’s account dated January 30‚2012 to June 30‚ 2012.This is the situation that resulted the plaintiff to ask for a subpoena‚ on April 30‚ 2012‚ Ilhan Erkan the defendant is supposed to pay
Premium Overdraft Bench Criminal law
The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is seeking the sum of $1 million from the (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader‚ for alleged copyright abuse of the song “Happy Birthday to You”. The (Plaintiff) Johnny Singstealer is the copyright holder to the said song. The (Defendant) Bobby Bandleader is a Bistro owner who performs the song in an altered version (his own words are used) to his customers on their birthdays and have been doing so for the past twenty years without obtaining any licensing or permission
Premium
identity of potential plaintiffs? Intentional battery - (Plaintiff‚ Malik v. Ruben) Malik can file a claim against Ruben for pushing him. Ruben would be liable for any physical harm sustained due to the physical contact. Unintentional negligence- (Plaintiff‚ Malik v. Stadium) Malik can sue for the stadium railing collapsing when he was pushed into it. The stadium did breach its duty of care and should be liable for some of Malik’s damages because it gave way. Strict Liability- (Plaintiff‚ Stadium v. Railing
Premium Tort