Negligence and liability in the Bhopal disaster and civil cases

Liability

On December 3, 1984; the lives of residents of Bhopal, India were changed dramatically. This occurred with the release of 40 tons of Methyl Isocyanate Gas (MIC) leaked from the Union Carbide plant. The result is that more than 3,800 people died from the release of this substance into the atmosphere. The lasting effects are that local and national regulations were streamlined under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act. The public is interested in the case, as it has implications on the way environmental protections are applied by multinational corporations inside developing countries. This caused all regulations to become integrated into a single standard. (Broughton, 2005)

The case involving Joe and James is showing how both can be arrested for assault. At the same time, each side can sue each other for negligence, emotional distress, lost income and pain / suffering from their injuries. The situation with Chuck and Bill is illustrating how Bill can be charged criminally for murder and sued civilly for damages. Sally can be charged criminally regardless of the fact that she pointed a toy gun at Cheryl. This is because she let her believe that the gun was real and demanded her belongings. (Ruschmann, 2009)

Discussion 2

The case with Belinda is showing how Jim engaged in treason and terrorism by passing classified secrets from the lost cell phone. Under the law, he can be charged criminally and face the possibility of the death penalty. Negligence is occurring with Jim failing to act. The injury is a result of the breach, the motivations and the overall damages. Belinda cannot seek any liability. This is because her face was damaged from trying to swerve to miss a deer. In this case, negligence is difficult to prove based upon the lack of failing to prove a duty to act, breaching these factors, the scope of the injury and the damages. As a result, the secondary incident is the underlying causes for negligence, treason and terrorism. (Owen, 2007)

Discussion 2 Topic 2

The desk clerk is not liable for dog bites. Instead, the hotel is failing to provide a safe environment and having the staff address these issues. However, the owner is also liable under Minnesota statute 347.02. This means that both the hotel and owner are responsible. ("2011 Minnesota Statutes," 2011)

Discussion 3

Proximate cause is when the plaintiff can show that their injuries were the direct result from the individual exhibiting a lack of duty and care. This requires demonstrating how their injury is directly related to the actions of the defendant. The reason why the courts struggle with these ideas is from inherent causes. This is when liability is reduced and it is difficult to show that the defendant was responsible. (Owen, 2007)

Discussion 4 Topic 2

As a result, Johnson is liable for failing to supervise. The basic standard that was used is the five basic elements of proving negligence. This is similar to what is utilized for negligence. The standard is showing that one party is at fault for the injury. If the judgment prevails, the school district will be liable. This is because Mrs. Johnson is an employee and subject to their jurisdiction. The fact that this occurred, is demonstrating how they failed to properly monitor and supervise her. (Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 2015)