TORT LAW Tort Law: Liebeck v. McDonald’sStep 1For this discussion, I elected to focus on the Liebeck v. McDonald’s (1994) case. Sometimes in 1992, Liebeck bought coffee from McDonald’s which she ended up spilling on her lap – causing third degree burns on her thighs as well as genital area. She later on filed a suit accusing the fast-food and restaurant chain of negligence in the United States District Court

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

JPMorgan Chase, the biggest bank in the United States, incurred enormous losses in the summer of 2012 from investment decisions made by its Chief Investment Officer (CIO) worth $5.8 billion. While JP Morgan was the only major profitable bank during the recent economic downturn, the recent losses contributed to intense criticisms since its Chief Executive Officer, Jamie Dimon, opposed stricter regulation in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis. However,

JPMorgan Chase, in 2012, announced one of the greatest losses through high-risk gambles in securities investments, which are an essential foundation of the U.S. economy. The incidence that occurred in the summer of 2012 resulted in an estimated of $5.8 billion loss in one of the country's biggest banks. The bank's chief investment officer, Jamie Dimon, announced the loss in May 2012. The losses, according to the CIO, resulted from

Not all offense levels are entitled to a jury trial and each jurisdiction has its own standard in this regard. As a general rule, however, any offense involving the possibility of incarceration as a sanction is entitled to the benefit of a jury trial. This same standard is applicable, as well, to the right of every defendant to be represented by counsel. In all cases, regardless of the seriousness

It must be considered, as well, that genetic testing is a somewhat newer thing and the results can be skewed; so even if a doctor did do a test and results came up negative, there is a chance something could have been positive. Is the doctor responsible for the fact that the test didn't find any genetic problems? It would be absolutely nonsensical to think that the doctor should be