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.
Based on this gathered information, the liability insurance company again will reevaluate the case, deciding whether it is a case that they should continue to defend or one they should attempt to settle outside of court.
As said before, because there is a legitimate question as to Gielle's employer's fault, the liability insurance company will most likely decide that it is in their best interest to continue to defend the case. Their next move will be to file a Motion for Summary Judgment, which as the court to dismiss Monty's action do to it lacking any debatable issue of fact. Monty will have a time to respond to the Motion. After the judge receives all the moving papers, he or she will issue an opinion.
In the case at hand the judge will most likely grant the liability insurance company's Motion for Default judgment. Because Monty cannot prove all the necessary elements of...
That being the case, the action will be dismissed and the liability insurance company will not be required to pay Monty any amount in damages.
Bibliography
Siegel, Brian N., and Emanuel Lazar. (2005). Torts. Fredericksburg: Aspen Law and Business.
Konka, Edward J. (1999). Torts in a Nutshell. St. Paul: West Group.
Henderson, James a., Richard N. Pearson and John a. Siliciano. (1999). The Torts Process. Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business.
Epstein, Richard Allen. (2004). Cases and Materials on Torts. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Conlin, Roxanne Barton, and Gregory S. Cusimano. (2003). Atla's Litigating Tort Cases. Eagan: ATLA Press.
Laycock, Douglas. (2002). Modern American Remedies: Cases and Materials. New York: Aspen Law & Business.
Bibliography
Siegel, Brian N., and Emanuel Lazar. (2005). Torts. Fredericksburg: Aspen Law and Business.
Konka, Edward J. (1999). Torts in a Nutshell. St. Paul: West Group.
Henderson, James a., Richard N. Pearson and John a. Siliciano. (1999). The Torts Process. Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business.
Epstein, Richard Allen. (2004). Cases and Materials on Torts. New York: Aspen Publishers.
Tort of Negligence with regards to business law. The discussions will particularly focus on areas that affect business decisions and any underlying law principles that have any effect on the same. There is also a section that looks at some of the sources of distrust of law. Negligence primarily means an action that creates an unreasonable risk, or in other words the failure of an individual to act normatively, as
Negligence Torts, Duty of Care and Available Remedies People commit torts all the time, intentionally and unintentionally, and many of these are dismissed, excused, ignored or otherwise allowed to transpire without resorting to litigation for remedies. For instance, if someone's foot is stepped on a couple of times in a crowded elevator, it may be a tort but it also may not be a big deal. In some cases, though, the
Negligence Generally, In order to sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty of care by his negligent commission of an action (or by his negligent omission of action), and that the defendant's breach of that duty of care was the proximate cause of tangible harm to the plaintiff (Dobbs, 2001). In addition, and
Sanders's injury was more as a result of the "hard falls" of softball, rather than any sort of "rough treatment" that occurred as a result of improper supervision. The "rough treatment" category of head-butting football players can easily be distinguished from the more passive interaction between sliding ankle and first base. When the facts of a case clearly demonstrate improper supervision of "rough treatment" athletic activity, the courts have had
The tort for companionship and society is, by law, only applicable to persons and not to animals, regardless of their regard as companion animals or not. As for the trespass tort, it was found that insufficient evidence was available to prove wrongdoing by the plaintiffs. There was no evidence to suggest how the dogs entered the plaintiffs' property. Evidence of neglect was not sufficient, according to the court. Analysis I was somewhat
However, Erin Brockovich the movie has a very different ending than the actual civil action under tort law brought against California's Pacific Gas and Electric Co. The Hollywood ending would have been preferable, however life is just not that simple and a tort law case against such a company is really a long, tiring legal battle. The 1993 legal dispute from Hinkley was resolved by arbitrage and at first