Harm is easily defined when it is intentional; after all, no one would push you down the steps or purposely cause you to wreck your car. Negligence is an area of tort law that involves unintentional acts that can cause harm and is just as easily identified. The boundaries governing liabilities for negligence, however, are much narrower than that of intentional torts. The difference is that the respondent in a negligent action is performing a task, which is considered perfectly acceptable in everyday activities, as long as the activities are performed with a reasonable amount of care. Therefore, the negligent party is held accountable for violating the rules governing that particular activity. Lets examine a few cases. The case of Palsgraph v.
Long Island Railroad Company in an opinion authored by Judge Benjamin Cardozo is a good place to start. This case places Helen Palsgraph on the train platform waiting for her train to the beach. Another train arrives at the station and two men run to catch it, the last gentleman leaps to the train at the last moment and starts to stumble. The conductor on the train grabs the man to help him aboard while the conductor on the ground shoves the man from behind. During the conductors actions of aide one of the two packages that the man is carrying gets dislodged and falls to the tracks. The package contains fireworks and upon hitting the tracks they explode on impact setting to motion a chain of events.
The Research paper on A Few Good Men Case Analysis
Lieutenant Junior Grade Daniel “Danny” Kaffee (Tom Cruise), is an inexperienced U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps lawyer who leads the defense in the court-martial of two Marines, Private First Class Louden Downey (James Marshall) and Lance Corporal Harold Dawson (Wolfgang Bodison), who are accused of murdering a fellow Marine of their unit, PFC William Santiago (Michael ...
Either the shock from the explosion or the rush of the crowd away from the explosion caused some scales on the other side of the platform to be knocked down. These scales fell on Helen Palsgraph, injuring her. Let us now apply what we know about reasonable care to this case. The conductors owed the man running for the train a reasonable amount of care when they started to assist him aboard. Had this man have gotten injured due to the negligent actions of the conductors, the Long Island Railroad would have definately been liable. Did the conductors also owe the same reasonable care to Helen Palsgraph by not pushing and pulling the man aboard the train? This question concerning where we draw the line for liability can be the tricky part of the equation. Judge Cardozo ruled that Long Island Railroad Company was not liable for the injuries sustained by Helen Palsgraph for she was an unforeseeably distant victim.
Had Judge Cardozo ruled in Helen Palsgraphs favor then the same consideration would have to have been granted to the accident victim on the street who stepped out into traffic because he was startled by the explosion. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Judge Cardozo wrote in the Palsgraph case that, there is no such thing as negligence in the air. If that were the case then lets blame the great depression on the person that made the first with draw that set the downward spiral into motion. Now let us examine the case of the Administration v. Haler NTSB Order No. EA-3666, Docket SE-10250. The Respondent installed an air/oil separator on a Bellanca Viking Model 17-30A that was not type certificated for that model. The installation of the separators drain line was inappropriately routed to the high-pressure area of the oil pump housing and shaft assembly, which caused the oil to be blown out of the engine.
Engine failure and crash followed. Prior to the incident, the Respondent had placed the A/C in the owners hanger with the unsigned logbook locked in the FWD cargo compartment of the A/C. The respondent also notified the owner of the A/C as to its disposition and that it should not be used until the forms approving the supplemental type cert. for the air/oil separator installation on the B.V. 17-30A were approved by the FAA Inspector. The Respondent submitted the installation drawing to the manufacture and the FAA for approval and was waiting for an FAA inspector to examine the A/C to authorize a sign off on the installation. The administrator argues on appeal that because there are distinct and separable steps in the maintenance process. There for, it is appropriate to judge the adequacy of the respondents work before inspection or approval by the FAA.
The Term Paper on Health Care 2
By the late 1990s, caregivers started to question the benefits of clinical paths. Organizations reported problems integrating the pathway document into patient records, thus dampening caregiver enthusiasm for using the pathway. Physicians, nurse, and other clinicians found the pathways difficult to apply to all patient populations. A variety of factors may be causing clinical paths to look like ...
The judges decision to reinstate the respondents license was upheld and the administrations appeal was denied. The judges reasoning was that the respondent should not be held liable under the performance standard in part 43 until he has finished the job he has undertaken to do. The installation was at best tentative and required further review and evaluation of materials before it could be considered complete. As in a civil mater though, this respondent could be held liable for negligence. The FAAs argument that, it is appropriate to judge the adequacy of the respondents work before inspection or approval by the FAA. This could be construed by a civil court judge or jury to mean that had the respondent preformed a preflight run of the engine that he would have identified the improper installation and corrected the situation before any harm was done.
And if found liable is the respondent liable for only injuries and damages to the aircraft owner and its occupants, or is he also liable for damage and injuries sustained by those that the aircraft landed on in the crash. According to Judge Cardozo reasonable care would only extend to the owner and occupants of the aircraft and not the individuals on the ground. In this case I believe the pilot and the respondent would both share responsibility. The pilot owed the individuals affected by the crash a reasonable amount of care which he ignored when he put an aircraft into the air that did not have the airworthiness certificate signed. Just as the mechanic owed him a reasonable amount of care in performing the air/oil separator installation.
The Essay on Impact Of Consumerism On Long term Health Care System Reforms
Impact of consumerism on long-term health care system reforms Americans find the good quality of health care system as a very important part of everyday living. Still over 3/4 of Americans believe that the current status quo of the US health care system is in deep crisis. The US government understand the necessity of quality medical care and the role of consumerism on long-term health care system ...
