An Incident At Johnny A 's Third Rail Pub

Tefik and Kristen are the only employees of the bar and they were both working on the night of the occurrence. Kristen and Tefik recalled the plaintiff entering the bar through the east door. She was with two or three other females. Kirsten served them and they all ordered beers, the plaintiff a Bud Light or Miller Lite. One of her friends paid for the entire round. Kristen sat at that third barstool from the east end of the bar. She was there for only 10 to 15 minutes and drank approximately two inches of her beer. She did not appear intoxicated at that time, but Kristen recalled her dancing at her seat, singing and being loud in general. The plaintiff’s friends left a few minutes before her and neither Tefik nor Kirsten saw the plaintiff

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

Facts: This case was filed by Brian Kopeikin against Moonlight Basin alleging that Moonlight Basin did not fulfill its duty of reasonable care. On the day of the incident, conditions on the mountain were perfect. The skies were clear, there was little to no wind, and the snow was powder. Mr. Kopeikin, a “very experienced skier” (p.2), was skiing Upper Elkhorn when he came upon unmarked and unnatural hazards. These hazards allegedly were the result of negligent acts by Moonlight. The ski run, Upper Elkhorn, intersected an unmarked and unnamed cat track that was lined with boulders. The cat track was designed in a way that did not allow Kopeikin to see the hazardous boulder field ahead of him. The boulder field spanned over fifty feet and was, “comprised of large, craggy, and sharp rocks” (p.3). It is important to note that this boulder field was allegedly unnatural and resulted because of the way Moonlight graded the cat track. It also needs to be acknowledged that there was no warning to skiers that they were coming up on a hazard. When Kopeikin came up to the hazard, he was skiing under control at a safe speed. As he made his way across the cat track, he fell into the boulder field. Again, it is alleged that he had no opportunity to avoid the hazard, and he sustained serious injuries as

Plaintiff Jeanette Myles (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on September 23, 2013, she fell into an open manhole in front of the property located at 4274 Foote Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. She claims that as a result of the fall, she incurred injuries, continuous pain, suffering and mental anguish, substantial medical expenses and lost time from work. Ms. Myles demands $100,000 in damages plus interest and costs.

In the case, Ryan v. Friesenhahn, the plaintiffs are Sandra and Stephen Ryan who are suing the defendants, Nancy and Frederick Friesenhahn. Nancy and Frederick’s son, Todd Friesenhahn, provided an “open invitation” to a party hosted at the Friesenhahn’s household that included a “bring your own bottle” invitation. Sandra and Stephen Ryan’s daughter, Sabrina, was in attendance at the Friesenhahn’s residence during the “open invitation” party. During the time that Sabrina was at the household, she became intoxicated. Sabrina Ryan operated a motor vehicle upon leaving the Friesenhahn’s property intoxicated and was then involved in a fatal accident.

This case between the plaintiff, Deborah White (Appellee) and the defendants, Patrick Gibbs; and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C., d/b/a O’Malley’s Tavern (Appenllants) was the subject of a Summary Judgment Motion filed on behalf of the

The five elements of negligence that apply to the case of Mr. Margrieter V. New Hotel

Lillian Hummel is the daughter of Eleanor Mingle. Just after 9 a.m. on August 6, 2014, Hummel saw her mother into the elevator on the twelfth floor of their apartment building. After a brief stop on the ninth floor, the elevator plummeted into the ground floor killing Mingle. Hummel then brought claim for negligent infliction of emotion distress (“NIED”) against Elite Elevator Company (“Elite”), which maintained the elevator. To recover for NIED, a party must [1] be closely related to the injury victim, [2] be present at the scene of the injury-producing event at the time it occurs, [3] be aware that it is causing injury to the victim and [4] as a result suffer emotional distress beyond that which would be anticipated in a disinterested witness. Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 645 (1989). This memorandum will address only the first three elements of the four elements set forth in Thing. Hummel will likely be able to establish that she was closely related to the victim, present at the scene, and aware that the incident contemporaneously injured her mother because she was reasonably certain that Mingle was on the elevator at the time of the crash.

This loss involves a wrongful death action of a 16 year old male passenger on the insured’s bus (open air double decker) in Los Angles Ca. The claimant was invited to attend his friends sweet sixteen party, where the friends parents (Schlossberg), charted the bus from the insured for a tour of Los Angeles. During the tour the sixteen year olds (minors) were on the top level while the adults remained on the deck below. Since the minors were not interested in the tour, the tour guide (provided by the insured) joined the other adults on the deck below.

Plaintiff, Ronald Hall alleges that on June 3, 2013 at approximately 11:00 a.m., he sustained injuries to his left leg when he stepped on an unsecured water meter pit located in the tree space in the 3500 block of Stanton Road, S.E. Plaintiff alleges that his medical/health care expenses total $17,103.45. Plaintiff stated that prior to the incident, he had traveled this area, and did not experience or notice any problems with the water meter cover; that the meter pit at issue was covered; nobody told him, nor did he hear that there was a problem with a water meter cover on this street. Plaintiff testified during his deposition that prior to stepping on the cover, it [cover] looked “normal.” Further, Plaintiff also testified that he did not

Officer Grieve, my client had no sign or warning telling him he was going to fall

For the last 13 years, I have enjoyed working in a wide range of commercial and construction related litigation. I have represented Bridgestone Americas, Inc., which includes Firestone Building Products, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc., and manufacturers of various products used in construction. Including, the manufacturer and distributor of wall covering in hotel mold litigation involving buildings in the New Orleans area. These cases involved issues with bid and retainage bond rights, performance, payment, liability, responsibility, and interpreting contracts, drawings, specifications, change orders and back charges, lien rights and remedies for commercial office buildings, hotels and the New Orleans Superdome. Parties involved in these cases typically included, owners, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, laborers, material men, bond companies, suppliers, architects, bankruptcy trustees, bankers, and public officials. This work required in depth understanding of building envelopes and construction practices.

Case Study: Amy West suffered severe lacerations (cuts) on her legs from flying glass, when a bottle of carbonated soda exploded in a grocery store. She claimed that she was reaching for a bottle of the same soda on a higher shelf, and that a bottle on the bottom shelf violently exploded, without warning. Amy is suing the grocery store and the soda manufacturer for damages and

The plaintiff Mr. Goudreau has been mandated by the defendants Gisèle Couture et Michel Poulin to perform some renovations in their house. Goudreau works under a licensed contractor, Mr. Paré. A contract is signed between Mr. Paré, M. Goudreau and the defendants. The defendants are to buy the materials needed according to Mr. Paré’s evaluation. Later on, the defendants ask that a retractable staircase, previously installed by Mr. Paré and one of his employees, be moved. As Goudreau takes care of the task, a movement of a tension bar injures his eye through his security glasses. His eye suffers from permanent after-effects. Mr. Goudreau sues the defendants as he judges them responsible for the incident.

OLA 1985 Section 5(4)(a) examines the gravity and likelihood of the probable injury. In the case of Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367, it is established that the gravity of harm is a key factor. Rotten floorboards in a hotel could definitely cause way more harm than a broken toe. It is inevitable that persons entering the premise will step on the floorboards and thus it is reasonable to expect that these floors should be safe to step on. The lack of maintenance and the hotel's negligence resulted in the plaintiff's personal injury.