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.
Negligence Tort Case Review
In 1981 Dula McCarty, while staying at the Pheasant Run Lodge, was attacked in her room. The intruder had gained access to her room through a sliding glass door that was lock but had a small safety chain attached. While Mrs. McCarty was out for dinner the intruder, who was never caught, pried open the sliding door, cut through the small chain, entered the room and attacked her upon her return. Mrs. McCarty sued the hotel claiming negligence on their part but the jury found in favor of the hotel. In 1987 she appealed the verdict to the 7th Circuit Court which upheld the original court's ruling. (McCarty v. Pheasant Run)
A tort can loosely be defined as an action by one person against another that results in harm to the second person, and in general there are three types of torts: intentional, negligence, and strict liability. While Mrs. McCarty did suffer a grievous tort, in her claim against the hotel it could not be asserted that the tort was intentional. For...
McCarty to have been successful in a claim of an intentional tort, the hotel must have demonstrated "willful misconduct or intentional wrongdoing." (Van Devort, 2000, p.121) Instead, Mrs. McCarty claimed that the hotel failed in its duty to show her the sliding door and make certain it was locked when she first entered the room, provide an adequate lock and enough security guards, and to make her room inaccessible from the outside walkway. She claimed that the hotel had a duty to protect its guests but chose not to take adequate steps and had reasonable knowledge that not doing so would result in harm to their guests. In other words, they had committed a negligence tort.
In defense of the hotel, Illinois law stated that a plaintiff was not negligent unless they acted in an unreasonable manner, defined as "the failure to take precautions that would generate greater benefits in avoiding accidents that the precautions would cost." (862 F.2d 1554) Mrs. McCarty claimed that she was not…
References
826 F.2d 1554: Dula McCarty, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Pheasant Run, Inc. Defendant-
appellee. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.-826f.2d1554. (1987).
Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/826/1554/321298/
McCarty v. Pheasant Run. 826 F.2d 1554: 23 Fed.R.Evid.Serv.251. (1987).
PublicResource.Org. Retrieved from https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/826/826.F2d.1554.86-2135.html
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
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
Case Analysis: Jones v. StateIntroductionThis paper discusses the case of Jones v. State, in which Kimberly Jones sued the State of Maryland for negligent training of two deputies who allegedly used excessive force during an altercation while attempting to serve an arrest warrant. The case ultimately hinged on the question of whether the State breached its duty to Jones in connection with the tort of negligent training and supervision.Negligence Tort
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
Australian Tort Law on Wilkinson v Downton Talk about whether or not the trigger of action in Wilkinson v Downton provides a viable remedy to victims of intentionally inflicted psychiatric harm in Australia these days. The Wilkinson v Downton judgment created a considerable frame of jurisprudence not only in England, but additionally within America, as well, dealing with claims relating to "outrageous as well as extreme conduct deliberately or perhaps recklessly leading
tort law, including the pros and cons of tort law and the importance of tort law in business environments. In addition the paper will investigate the potential effects of tort reform, and review cases related to tort law, and how it may affect American businesses and consumers. Tort law is an important issue to explore because it relates to the issues of product liability, negligence and financial gain or