Strict constructionism

The question asked basically has two parts. In the first part of my essay I will try to shed some light on circumstances where an employer can be held liable for the torts of his/her employees. And after that I will focus on some of the reasons why one person is held liable in certain situations for the torts committed by another person. And then I will finally finish the essay with a conclusion at the end. Vicarious liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another, even though

Case Example D The main legal issues that have come about from this case are very important for many reasons. Zoom Car Company is being sued on part of Daniel Boone for them to pay for his medical expenses resulting from being dragged from his car and being beaten. The reason behind this is his compass that was installed in his car by Zoom Car Company was faulty which lead him in the wrong direction where he got lost and ended up in a horrible situation. Daniel Boone is suing for his medical

MEMORANDUM FROM: Group Members TO: Owners, Summer Place, Inc. DATE: May 26, 2015 RE: Information, Findings and Conclusions on Business and Legal Problems I. Decision Situation, Concern, and Purpose Summer Place wants to expand Diamond Design and Construction, Inc. (Diamond). It is considering a five-year expansion plan in County A located in eastern North Carolina. This expansion would support increased profits and business growth objectives. County A has enacted utility surcharge

knew about the defect but made a conscious decision not to “redesign” the product because it would cost too much money. Sally may have a successful case claiming intentional tort, negligence, design and manufacturing defect, causation and damages and strict liability.

The Liability case that I have chosen to complete this study on is John Doe v. Bennett, 2004. This case helps to bring clarity to vicarious liability of Churches in Canada. John Doe v. Bennett – Relates to the issue regarding whether or not a non-profit organization may be held vicariously liable for the sexual misconduct of its employees. The case in question involves sexual abuse by a parish priest in a Roman Catholic District in Newfoundland against a number of young boys who were under his custody

admissions programs; but this could only be done under strict judicial scrutiny, and with narrowly tailored provisions. Two separate questions stem from this: What does “narrowly tailoring” mean in light of the 14th Amendment? And how can other universities implement admission standards that are constitutionally permissible? Short Answer Grutter and Gratz established that race could be a factor in the admissions process. But it must pass strict-scrutiny. At first blush, this might appear discriminatory

Introduction The common law concept of vicarious liability is an element where an organisation/company is responsible for the negligent acts that an employee does which the employer represents contrasting to corrective justice where the role of the employer is dependable on and not the actual fault. This area of law has experienced significant developments. The courts have placed great value on the risks created by an initiative in determining the extent of liability. I will further discuss whether

the plaintiff was severely burned after wasting coffee purchased from the drive-through window of the restaurant, into her lap. I will explore the basis of her claim against McDonald 's and identify if the alleged tort intentional, negligent, or strict liability. Additionally, I will examine why Ms. Liebeck 's lawyers believed that McDonald 's was liable to Ms. Liebeck. Likewise, I will reveal whether or not I think it is reasonable to expect that a hot drink purchased from a restaurant might

In this particular case, Hassan v. City of New York, a variety of issues have been raised that intersect with the idea of government surveillance on these Muslim Communities. This case does not utilize a federal or state RFRA, but rather focuses strictly on determining the legal validity of the government surveillance program of Muslim Americans. The Plaintiffs have argued that the NYPD’s government surveillance program has violated the equal protection, establishment, and free exercise freedoms

that a reasonable man would do, or doing something that a reasonable man would not do. In cases of professional negligence, involving someone with a special skill, that person is expected to show the skill of an average member of his profession. 3.3 Strict Liability Liability for a wrong that is imposed without the claimant having to prove that the defendant was at fault. It is no defence in these torts that the defendant took reasonable care to prevent damage, but various other defences are admitted