Business Law Case Study

The Supreme Court of Ohio has determined that when an individual is a participant or a spectator at a sport/recreational event, the individual assumes the inherent risks of the activity. This rule is based upon the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The evidence in this case reflects that the appellant was voluntarily participating in the sambo demonstration when the injury took place.

1) Yes. Defendant owes no duty to protect Adair from the harm he alleges because an inherent risk of rock climbing includes the negligence of co-participants as well as the danger of falling.

In the case of Anthony, a New Jersey resident and owner of a waste disposal company in the state of New Jersey, and his two business associates, Paul and Silvio, whom suffered severe injuries due to a motor vehicle accident caused by a negligent truck driver; they have great standing to sue against the neglectful driver and the company associated with the ownership of the vehicle. Regardless of the diversity of their residency/ citizenship, the affected party can proceed to sue the corporation responsible for the damages caused by their staff and property; reason being that they are protected under the Constitution’s diversity of citizenship, and the privileges and immunities clause. Furthermore, these two constitutional clauses in addition to the commerce clause, dictate the court that the matter needs to be brought to.

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

Issue: Who is the negligent party (or parties) responsible for the personal injury suffered by Shayla Smith while swimming at O&D Family Campground?

Peter is a regular customer at Briarwood fitness center. He follows the same routine allowing his six-year-old daughter to receive swimming lessons from the center even though he is not a member. Since Peter is not a member he is not fully aware of the rules and regulations of the fitness center. When Peter decides to use one of the weight machines he overestimates his strength and is injured when he falls out the machine injuring his back. Before Peter even used the machine he neglected to read any warning labels or question his current athletic strength compared to that of his youth. The issue is whether Peter can sue Briarwood Fitness Center and Domina Flex for damages even though he is a knowledgeable user assumed the risks, and ignored their warnings?

The court finds that although the employee does have a pre-existing condition that contributes to the injury, there is a chance that leaving the restaurant booth at the work related function holds some level of contribution to the injury. As a result, the employee receives financial compensation.

I would also argue that fault clearly lies with Simple because of the assumption of risk. The additional factors that made this climb extra risky only magnify that assumption or risk. The fact that it was rainy and Simple had been drinking only increase the risk he was already assuming. The simple act of climbing the tower on the clearest, brightest day with the clearest, sharpest mind would still be assuming risk. A simple misstep, gust of wind or flock of birds could have been an intervening event and as an untrained, unqualified individual Simple should not have ever made the attempt. This should render him (in this case his heirs) unable to claim damages under either contributory or comparative negligence scenario. Proving at least some amount of, or partial fault disallows the damages in a contributory negligence jurisdiction. He is also, I would argue, be more than 50% responsible for his injuries and therefore in a State that had adopted

The management of Little Island Resort deeply apologizes for the mishap. At present both companies, Xx-cellent Hardware Distributors and Little Island Resort are working together to put measures in place to rectify the current problem. The company is seeking to come to an amicable agreement with the accused and victim. Management held a meeting with the employees to sensitize them about the situation as they were indirectly affected by the incident. Employees were given the opportunity to suggest the repercussions of the incident.

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)

Now lets be honest here indeed my client Andy Allen and Lee Allen, knew the risk that they faced. However, can you place blame on two ordinary individuals who simply just want to have fun, enjoy life, and check things off their bucket list? Can you sit here in front of my client and tell him or her that he or she is at fault for this tragic death? My client is not a professional or and expert in scuba diving, however, the individual who owns this credible and highly known business is. Not only is he or she an expert or professional when it comes to scuba diving, the diving leader Reggie Rogers is also a well-trained and certified diver as well. Wouldn’t you think that since they have more than one individual who is

claims that the business is liable for his injuries because the machine being used was not in a

Adam has committed an unintentional torts (negligence) because he has failed to live up to a required duty of care. Duty of care is a requirement that a person act toward others and the

this researcher began to explore liability issues in the golf business. In this age of litigation-happy

As in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [1987] 162 CLR 479, it would appear that if injury occurred the proprietor would be liable to beach of duty of care, unless, he had placed appropriate signage. Therefore in this case, the proprietor would not be held accountable to injuries sustained.