Acme Electronics Case

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

service at all? Is the case criminal negligence - or just a genuine error in

Upon notice of the accident, Avey apologized profusely and offered to pay the cost of cleaning the spilled paint. (Orig. Pet. 3). However, Plaintiffs refused and found their own paint removal specialist who “bleached out” some of the tile. (Id.). The roof is slightly discolored, but no one driving by would notice the discoloration. (Def.’s Dep. 1). Additionally, Plaintiffs hired Coolright, Inc. to take off the exterior shell of the AC unit, sand the surface, and repaint it. (Orig. Pet. 4). Coolright determined that this was all that was needed to remove the paint. (Id.). In the process of removing the exterior shell, Coolright damaged the condensing coils. (Id.).

In Greenman V. Yuba Power, the plaintiff was injured while using a power tool called the Shopsmith that was given to him as a gift from his wife in 1955. In 1957, while using the tool, the piece of wood he had been working without difficulty suddenly flew out and struck him on the head causing injuries. Ten and a half months later, he gave the retailer and manufacturer written notice of the claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint against them both alleging such breaches and negligence. After a trial before the jury, the court ruled there was no evidence that the retailer was negligent or breached an express warranty and that the manufacturer was not liable for the breach of any implied. The jury returned a verdict for the retailer

Prima facie, it appears that it was Mr Stephens’ negligence in neglecting to inform Mr Dick of the live electrical connection that led to the damages suffered by Mr Harley. This raises the first issue of law (or combined fact and law) as to whether Mr Stephens owed Mr Harley a duty of care at all.

• But for Lyle’s failure to follow the specific installation instructions with regard to the wrong widget, coupled with his failure to notice it was the wrong widget due to putting personal interests above performing per the subcontract agreement, the injury would not have happened;

The plaintiff, OSHA, did a safety investigation of Centimark Corporation after an employee fell through a roof and died. OSHA claimed the working surface was not stable and Centimark was negligent in checking its stability. The defendant, Centimark Corporation, argued that the standard of checking integrity of the roof did not apply to them because that current construction project had been completed. Centimark argued they should not be liable for that standard. The court ruled against Centimark stating it was clear Centimark’s employees were exposed to a fall hazard. Centimark was required to pay 7000 in fines.

Although the express warranty in this case intended to limit the manufacturer's liability to replacement of defective parts, and disclaimed all other express or implied warranties, the court believed that such rules could not be applied on a strict basis. The conflicting interests of the parties must be considered, along with social policy.

In order to completely understand the liability in negligence, there must be reasonable foreseeability present which includes three main “elements of negligence” They are Duty of Care, Breach of Duty and Remoteness of Damage (pg436-437 (8.220) Terry and Giugni) In addition the plaintiff must also satisfy the four traditional elements of negligence in order to have a claim; (pg 431 (8.140) Terry and Giugni)

There was a crash cart that was brought to my attention. This crash cart number #13 that was exchanged from PICU because of a code was called around or about 1530. The information that was passed indicated that the crash cart was ready to be returned into rotation. I noticed and Mr. Jackson, QA noticed items missing from the top of the crash cart #13, such as pediatrics and adult zolls. After futher inventory of the crash cart Mr. Jackson the QA for the crash cart noticed many items missing from the crash cart. This is unacceptable due to the sensitive of these crash carts. The document was not completed nor items was replishmish. If we would have not inspected this crash cart and put it into rotation and a code was performed, we as a whole

(2016) as being that “…the defendant’s conduct violated that duty” (p. 137). Widget Corporation breached its duty of care by failing to ensure that all of the widgets sent were the correct ones. Plaintiff may also argue that Widget Corporation failed to follow-up with Lyle or the employer subsequent to the installation to help ensure that the job was done correctly. The Texas customer breached its duty of care by failing to notice that there was a wrong widget and, in turn, instructing Lyle to proceed with the installation, plus failing to inspect the installation after Lyle left. As previously noted, the employer may offer evidence that the wrong widget was nearly identical in appearance to the correct ones to counter this duty, but this would be a matter for the court to decide. Additionally, the employer may wish to counter that the employee contributed somehow to the injury such as by failing to detect any potential irregularities in the functioning of the machinery. However, as a Texas workers’ compensation non-subscriber, the employer will be barred from raising contributory negligence by the employee as a defense (Westlaw, n.d.). Lyle breached his duty of care by failing to notice the wrong widget, and as well as the indication it was the wrong widget when he could not get the bolts to tighten to specifications and instead left the job site just to get to his son’s soccer game. Not alerting Widget Corporation that he could

The Lowe’s Defendants also assert a cause of action for breach of contract against Groundtec claiming that it breached paragraphs 23 and 26 in the Agreement. See Exhibit A, at ¶¶ 23-28.

There are three essential elements that are required for an action for negligence to considered. It must first be established if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that there was a breach of that duty of care and that the plaintiff suffered a loss caused by the breach of duty. As Michael was repairing a bike for a client, he did owe his client Paul a duty of care. As stated in the problem, Michael was distracted and neglected to properly secure the front wheel after finishing his repairs, this is a breach of the duty of care on Michael’s part. Paul also suffered a loss caused by this breach of care. This means that all three essential elements required are established for a case of negligence.

Am hereby addressing you regarding the inclusion of the lawsuit in the year’s financial statement of the Gadget Inc. The pending litigation can be a significant potential liability to the company. The lack of disclosure of such liabilities has cause misunderstanding between the auditors, company CEOs, and the users of the financial statements. Auditors are supposed to access the suitability of the financial statement disclosures regarding the pending litigations. However, this is one of difficult tasks as the auditor’s efforts to do so depends upon receiving the information from company’s attorneys. The auditor therefore should seek the information from the company’s attorney before disclosing pending litigation as a liability in the company’ financial statement.

Merrill Electronics Corporation, founded by Thomas Miller in 1950 and a major distributor for the Global Electrical Company (GEC), is one of the largest manufacturer of electrical and electronics products for consumer and institutional markets. Over the years, it has expanded its operations with its noncompeting lines of electrical appliances, records, compact discs, and cassettes and through importing from and distributing to Taiwan and Japan.