Negligent Tort
Sportspower Ltd. voluntarily recalled 23,400 trampolines because the metal legs of the trampoline can move out of their correct positions, poke through the trampoline's jumping area and present the risk of injuring the user by possibly "deep, penetrating puncture wounds, cuts and bruises." On the limited facts of the case, some tests to prove negligence would be passed but a court could not decide whether other tests are passed. However, a provision of the Consumer Protection Act covers this situation and might give relief to an injured person.

On November 28, 2012, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the recall of 23,400 trampolines manufactured by Sportspower of Hong Kong and sold exclusively by Sports Authority (U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 2012). The recall was voluntary and was made by Sportspower in conjunction with the CSPC because the metal legs of the trampoline can move out of their correct….

Negligent Tort
In basic terms, a tort can be defined as a civil wrong. In this case, it is the victim of wrongful conduct who brings action against the alleged wrongdoer. The alleged wrongdoer in tort law is referred to as the defendant while the claimant or plaintiff is the victim who suffers as a result of the conduct of the defendant. In a way, negligent tort is taken to be the most significant of all torts. In this text, I concern myself with negligent tort.

The Elements of a Negligent Tort

In Stuhmcke's (2001) own words, "negligence is a tort which determines legal liability for careless actions or inactions which cause injury." Hence effectively, its occurrence can be said to take place in those instances where an individual causes harm to another individual as a result of his or her failure to take the legally required care. It can be noted that….

Negligent Liability & IT Outsourcing
Negligent Entrustment Liability

Negligent entrustment is where personally identifiable information is outsourced to an insecure back-office operation (Rustad, 2007). Organizations have an affirmative duty to ensure that data is secure regardless of whether it is in-house or outsourced, or where it gets outsourced to. The liability centers on the companies who have direct liability to consumers and businesses, not just the outsource operation.

has international standards for the protection of intellectual property. U.S. companies have an independent duty of care to ensure third world back-office operation comply with reasonable data security standards. It is a company's duty to do security audits before transmitting sensitive information. Negligent enablement lawsuits come about to hold the handler of information directly liable for facilitating or paving the way for cybercrime by direct negligence. AU.S. organization that does not do security audits on the outsource operations can be held liable for the negligent….

A person may be able to file action against more than one defendant by establishing that the behaviors of each were proximate causes of their damage, even if the defendants' negligent behavior was dissimilar (Larson, 2003).
According to the law, a proximate cause is an act sufficiently associated with the legally identifiable harm to include not just the actual physical and sequential cause, but also the legal cause of a given harm. The definite cause is the first point of proximate cause, and that means but for the action, the effect would not have happened. The act bringing about injury must have been the but for cause in addition to the end result has to be reasonably foreseeable to the actor at the time they acted. Proximate cause attaches this element of reasonable foreseeability to the but for test in order to conclude whether it would be fair to hold….

Negligent Tort
Under the law the general public is entitled to a certain amount of protection. This is because everyone is expected to provide safeguards for the people they are dealing with. When there is an accident, the odds are high of a particular party becoming the subject of possible tort litigation. In the case of negligent tort, the other party unintentionally violated the standard duty of care. This is defined as someone who is acting within reason to ensure that everything is safe. Once some fails to follow these basic guidelines, is when this will increase the odds that they could be the subject of a negligent tort claim. ("Elements of Tort Negligence," 2010) ("Standard of Care," 2012)

Proving Negligent Tort

To prove any kind of negligent tort, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant violated several different criteria. To include: the duty to protect, the actual injury, breach of duty….

Human esource Organization Behavior and Leadership
As the hiring component of a business, H has a responsibility to represent the best interests of that business while also representing the values and commitment to society that the organization promotes in its organizational culture. Businesses must respect all stakeholders and work to please each and every one -- including shareholders, employees, customers, clients, and members of the community. When it comes to hiring the right individuals for the right job, H must assess each applicant individually on a case by case basis to see if his or her personality and skill level aligns with the position. In order to reduce the rate of job turnover, which can be costly for businesses, H must address the issue of "negligent hiring" while at the same time complying with EEOC (2017) rules and regulations regarding discrimination against applicants who have a criminal past. This paper will….

Davis v. The Boad of County Commissiones of Dona Ana County:
Maiah C. Davis filed a lawsuit against Dona Ana County fo injuies he suffeed while a patient at Mesilla Valley Hospital. In the lawsuit, Davis accused Joe Heea, an employee at the hospital, of sexually assaulting he. Futhemoe, she alleged that the hospital hied Heea on incompetent, favoable suggestions fom Dana Ana County Detention Cente whee he was also investigated fo allegation of sexually haassing female inmates. Accoding to the epot by the Detention Cente's diecto, Heea was accused of making statements with sexual ovetones, expessing his desie fo sex, and obtaining sexual favos fom inmates. Some of the efeences made in the epot include ponogaphic video and condoms found in his office as well as being in possession of undewea belonging to a juvenile. As a matte of fist impession, the New Mexico Cout of Appeals which detemined the….

Employee's Rights to Health and Safety in the Workplace
The objective of this study is to analyze the rights of employees to health and safety in the workplace in regards to the scenario as follows:

DoRight has recently been hired as the President of the "Universal Human Care Hospital," where he oversees all departments with over 5,000 employees and over 20,000 patients at the medical facility. He has been provided with a broad set of duties and oversight of numerous departments, including business development, customer services, human resources, legal, patient advocacy, to name a few. He has managers in each department that he supervises and who work with him to address the needs of the various internal and external stakeholders of the hospital. Dr. DoRight discovers that some patients within the hospital have been dying as a result of a variety of illegal procedures by doctors and nurses, and negligent supervision….

Dangerfield and Associate Entities
Upon examining this case, it's clear that the claims made by Hartman are completely legitimate. The claims made by Mitchell are somewhat legitimate. This paper will first examine the basis of the lawsuit waged by Hartman, as the bulk of the valid accusations made are made by this particular plaintiff. The crux of Hartman's lawsuit is based on the claim that Dangerfield was liable for the negligence of its parking attendant along with independent negligence. Hartman then claims that Dangerfield and Sandman were fundamentally liable by association. While these aren't the exact details of why Hartman was suing these connected entities, it does boil down the fundamental reason. The essential element of Hartman's case boils down to primary tort's law. "A person is negligent if he fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to other persons or their property. In other words, he failed to do….

Whichever party files the claim has the initial burden to establish that a valid contract existed (Halbert & Ingulli, 2009). In that regard, any credible evidence such as a tape recording of the original telephone call or of any subsequent calls referring to the existence of the agreement will suffice to establish the existence of a valid enforceable verbal contract for services to be provided by Eddie. Credible testimony in court from witnesses who actually heard the conversation or to whom either party admitted the existence of the agreement would also establish the existence of a valid and enforceable contract (Halbert & Ingulli, 2008).
If Eddie breaches, Grace would be seeking the remedy of the compensation for any benefit of the bargain lost, such as where she subsequently ends up paying more for the same services. If Grace breaches, Eddie would be seeking his lost profit from the sale of….

According to the court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff, no further evidence as to the source of the muscle atrophy in his shoulder and arm, because "the thing itself speaks" when all three components of res ipsa loquitur are satisfied, as they were in the case of Ybarra vs. Spangard. The plaintiff's claim for negligence against his doctors was ultimately successful because (1) arm injuries do not ordinarily occur in an appendectomy operation absent negligent action by the physicians, surgeons, or nurses in attendance during the procedure, (2) the injuries were caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, as the plaintiff was rendered unconscious during the surgery's preparation period, and (3) the plaintiff never volunteered or submitted to the possibility of her arm being injured when they elected to undergo a surgery in their abdominal region. One of the most interesting aspects….

Another, related doctrine to vicarious liability is that of negligent hiring, in which an employer does not take reasonable precautions to do appropriate background checks of the employee. If a hospital hires a nurse without the necessary qualifications, the hospital may be found liable for any errors the employee performs. However, the hospital might be found vicariously liable if it hires a qualified nurse, but expects the nurse to labor under unreasonable circumstances, such as working back-to-back shifts repeatedly with a skeleton staff, or has the nurse perform her duties with improperly maintained medical devices.

The need for the doctrine of vicarious liability is manifest in the fact that it is necessary for employers to be held liable for the consequences of their policies and not blame their own imprudent actions, conducted in the name of profit, to improve their bottom line. Simply put, it is not fair to hold a….

Clearly she has not been a good steward of her classes because the principal twice visited her class and both times she was working individually with a student while other students were misbehaving or otherwise not being productive.
The Trenton district was also negligent because state law requires that all computers in public schools have software that prevents -- or filters out -- inappropriate materials. A public school cannot allow students to access pornography, whether it was just a little stunt that some boys pulled to get attention, or whether they were actually curious about a porn site and hoped to access it for a thrill of some kind.

Additionally, the Trenton school district is also potentially negligent because the Connecticut Guidelines for Teacher Evaluation Programs (Duke, 1995) require that before a teacher gets a contract, he or she must pass "…an essential skills examination (CONNCEPT)"; in fact teachers must pass….

State v. Stark (1992)
Mr. Stark was the defendant in this case which concerned her action of infecting three women with HIV sexually. He tested positive for HIV, which was then confirmed twice by doing two other independent tests. As an ordinary procedure, Stark was taken through counseling sessions to make him aware of the risk involved in handling HIV. He was informed about the risk of the disease spreading and the importance of making his partner aware before having any sexual escapades with her. However, he disregarded this advice and this came to the knowledge of the county health officer who sought a cease and desist order as allowed by the state statute. Stark did not comply. The officer then asked for judicial enforcement and later filed a police report about the matter.

The police obtained evidence in form of testimony from the three victims who confirmed that they had sex….

"When a court strikes a contract provision for unconscionability it is declaring that provision is so unfair or oppressive that the court will refuse to enforce it." (Gillespie, 2007). The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (U.S. Const. amend. XIII, 1). The contract that the parties signed purported to make Mrs. Lowell the property of Mr. Lowell. Because the Lowells are Americans and purchased their ticket in America, it is unlikely that an American court would recognize Mr. Lowell's ability to contract away his wife's right to be recognized as a legal individual in a contract dispute. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees Mrs. Lowell the equal protection of the laws, (U.S. Const. amend. XIV,….