Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Tort Law
The tort actions in this case would be the glass in the food that started the event in the first place. The other waiter caused a tort action when he spun into Anna's waiter causing him to be burned with the flaming dish. Anna's waiter would have caused another tort action by throwing the flaming apron and causing a table cloth to be caught on fire as well. This caused the smoke inhalation and burn injuries to the patrons. People panicking and running to get through the revolving door caused a tort action when the old lady got trampled and injured. Another tort action took place when Anna was taken to surgery, mistaken as another patient, and suffered an inappropriate amputation. The restaurant only having a revolving door and no other exit for the patrons to escape the fire could also be another tort action against the restaurant because it exhibited safety issues.
Anna is definitely a plaintiff because of biting into a piece of glass in the food that was served to her at the Italian restaurant. She is also a plaintiff...
Anna's waiter is also a plaintiff because he got burned in the process from the flaming dish he was trying to serve. The old lady who had gotten trampled in the process of trying to escape the fire is also a plaintiff because she suffered injury when the patrons panicked and couldn't get out of the revolving door fast enough. There are several patrons who received smoke inhalation and burns from the event that would also be plaintiffs, especially where medical expenses and loss of work time are concerned.
The Italian restaurant is definitely a defendant for negligence, strict liability, and product liability with the glass in the food. There is also vicarious liability because of the employee actions involved. The revolving door with no other way to safely escape the fire could also be considered negligence for safety hazards. The patrons who trampled…
Bibliography
Elements of Negligence. (n.d.). Retrieved from Docstoc: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1046265/Elements-of-Negligence
Claudio did not have to let them in since they lacked the proper warrants State Immigration Department acted without warrants Without obtaining the requisite warrants, they had come into the restaurant, stationed an official at each door, barred exit from exiting and began interrogating Ricardo in the kitchen. Ricardo in the kitchen. In fact, Ricardo was on a valid working holiday visa. Ricardo would likely have a possible recourse
Tort reform has been on the lips of politicians and attorneys for many years. In the United States, it is a contentious political issue with strong feelings on both sides of the issue. U.S. tort reform advocates propose procedural and time limits on the right to file claims as well as capping the amounts of damage awards. The supporters of the existing tort system argue that the reformers have misrepresented
If done accidentally, then it must be analyzed to see if it was negligent or if the defendant was liable (meant to harm). The harm may be done through another and the defendant is still the perpetrator or cause of the harm. Assault is similar to Battery in that the harm was meant to be done to the plaintiff, but in Assault, the victim perceives beforehand that there is
Law and Ethics in the Business Environment RIGHT FROM WRONG Business Ethics and the Law Business law fixes the minimum standards of behavior for businesses (Bramble, 2013). Enforcing these laws generally consists of fines involved in the exercise of trade and commerce. Criminal accountabilities must be proven in the appropriate court of law through evidence. Even when found culpable, a business can only be fined as a penalty. But business ethics exceeds simple
Legal Case; Ron is Hurt by Protestors What Action can he Take? Ron has a potential claim under tort. Tort is seen when one person/party does something wrong against another (Edwards and Wells, 2015). For Ron to take action, three things should be present, the person accused of wrongdoing should have a duty of care, that the duty of care was breached, and that Ron (the plaintiff) suffered as a result
In this case Anna's waiter would claim that he was acting in self-defense when he pulled the burning apron off of himself and discarded it. Elderly Lady v. Italian Restaurant Negligence Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard recognized by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm. The test is not whether the defendant intended to exercise due care, nor whether the defendant did the best he