Clark, when a leaning 80 Ft tree on an adjacent property fell on the plaintiffs husband’s car and killed him. Ms. Galling sued Mr.. Clark for failing to notify her husband of the danger posed by the leaning tree. Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (I. E. , the specific legal issue between the two parties). Provide a Judgment on who should win the case – be clear. The appropriate legal issue in this case is to decide who, or whether anyone bears responsibility for the fall of the leaning tree.
The plaintiff assumes that because Clark owns the property where the tree fell, that he is responsible for notification of its danger. Yet the plaintiff herself worked at Clack’s house as a housekeeper and did to notify her husband of the danger of the leaning tree. This shows the flawed logic behind the plaintiffs argument that it takes one to spend time in that house to see the danger of the tree and to notify others about it. People do not have to be responsible for calculating the risks of leaning trees and no one should bear responsibility for Sailing’s death.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
It is an accident that is beyond the human ability to prevent and the case should be dismissed. Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law. The decision is based on custom/defenses to negligence. Custom rule of law states hat there is no breach when the defendant acts in line as everyone else. And in this case the act of ignoring a leaning tree is done by everyone else, including the plaintiff who happens to have worked at Clack’s house, ironically, as the housekeeper.
Case 10: Stacy Layton Suing V. Bravos Higher Education Services Corp.. , Inc. Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the dynamic business law By Kandahar The case involves Stacy Layton Suing as the plaintiff and Bravos Higher Education Services Corporation, as the defendant. Bravos Corporation, a student loan firm, allowed one of its employees to store customers’ financial information on his personal laptop which had no encryption to it.
The laptop was stolen from the employee in a house robbery and subsequently, Bravos informed its customers that their information might have been breached and offered a six month identity theft monitoring. One customer, Suing, sued Bravos for neglecting her information and causing her harm even though her information wasn’t used by a 3rd party and she never suffered identity theft. The appropriate legal issue in this case is to decide whether by allowing its employee o store customers’ financial information on his personal laptop and take it home, Bravos harmed its customer Suing.
Although Gun’s information was never used to harm her or steal her money, the very fact that her information was stolen causes her to suffer psychologically of fear and worry for everyday until she finds a way to 100% guarantee that her information will never be used by thieves. Six months of identity theft monitoring is not enough. One asks what if theft occurs after the six months. Who can guarantee Suing her assets will be safe after the six months? No one can. This causes ongoing fear and psychological suffering by the plaintiff which makes the defendant guilty of harming her.
The defendant is also guilty of negligence for not taking adequate measures to prevent the incident. Bravos should be fined and Suing and all customers’ of Bravos at the time of the breach should be offered permanent identity theft monitoring. The decision is based on the rule of law negligence and damages done by the defendant. Created by: Baker Alsatian Named Matter Abdullah Obdurately Assam Alleluias Omar Abigail Khalid’s Lambadi Easel Allah’s Embark Albanians