Briefing a Case

Case Brief: Nichols v. Niesen

Issue

In the case of Nichols v. Niesen, the Nichols consisting of four girls and the defendants are the Niesen Family (McAdams et al, 2015). Facts regarding the case issue are grounded on a party that took place at the Niesen home where they had allowed underage drinking to occur. It is rather apparent that Niesen family never offered alcohol to the minors but it was consumed in their acknowledgment. After the party ended one of the party guests by the name Beth Carr having engaged in underage drinking hit another vehicle that was carrying the Nichols while crossing the highway heading home. The Nichols suffered minor injuries which ranged from psychological to physical harm. Nichols decided to litigate the Niesen family based on their negligence of the legal provisions as they permitted underage drinking to prevail in their homestead (McAdams et al, 2015). This derived a major dilemma based on the fact that the alcohol was never provided by the family despite the incident having taken place in their homestead.

Rule

The Nichols forwarded their case to the Appeal court and it is during the circuit that an appeal to dismiss the case was rejected even after it had been stated that a claim regarding negligence had not been stated (McAdams et al, 2015). The main issue is grounded on whether the argument regarding negligence is to be allowed against the Niesen family based on the situation of the party. The case was solved in approval of the Nichols argument at the court of Appeal. The ruling held that the four provisions of relevant negligence were achieved (McAdams et al, 2015). The judges stated that the Niesen ought to have observed and acknowledged the harm that was associated with underage drinking within their property as they never demonstrated the obligation of care nor fulfilled the other requirements.

Analysis

It is evident that under the negligence provisions the Niesen family had committed a crime. In that, they acknowledged underage drinking despite the fact that they understood it was not allowed and it might have resulted in more harm to the teenagers (McAdams et al, 2015). The act having occurred in their homestead they were found guilty of acting in negligence.

Conclusion

The case was ruled in support of Nichols family claims on the ground that the act by Niesen was in violation of the negligence common provisions. They should have acted as responsible parents and controlled the situation and their actions resulted in damages.

Nalwa v. Cedar Fair

Issue

Smriti Nalwa the case plaintiff broke her wrist while in a jumbo car driven by her 9 years old son (McAdams et al, 2015). In the case, she had sued Cedar Fair under negligence among a number of notable action causes being the amusement park machinist at the time when the accident took place (McAdams et al, 2015). The accident had taken place in the park and therefore, the plaintiff held that she was entitled to safety as a public passenger within the public setting.

Rule

The court ruled that the assumption of risk doctrine barred negligence recovery since the injury was acquired as a result of bumping a threat that cannot be avoided while riding bumper carriages. The supposition that the risk doctrine encompasses the need for promoting public safety as the amusement parks were reversed in regard to bumper cars given that the activity is accounted as being highly gentle to be accounted as a sport (McAdams et al, 2015).

Analysis

Even though the court ruled in favor of the defendant it was not on the ground that safety would not be guaranteed at the parks but based on the fact that the operator was obliged of the duty to reduce the related risks but had no ability to eradicate all of them.

Conclusion

It is evident that the plaintiff was owed a care responsibility but that does not imply that the defendant had the ability to eliminate all the related safety issues.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

Issue

Stella Liebeck a customer at McDonald's agonized third-degree burn wounds after unintentionally leaking coffee on her lap which she had acquired at McDonald's (Rosenfeld, 2015). This incident resulted in her 8 days hospitalization and additional clinical treatment for two distinct years. Liebeck lawyers held that the coffee which was over 82 degree Celsius was very dangerous and had a higher potential of resulting in harm to the customers (Rosenfeld, 2015). The lawsuit was mainly filed in regard to negligence which the restaurant had demonstrated.

Rule

The court ruled in support of Liebeck that led to her compensation for the physical and emotional damage that she had suffered at the time (McAdams et al, 2015). In that, the restaurant was found guilty of offering coffee that was dangerous thus violating their responsibility of care and leading to damages.

Analysis

It was determined that the restaurant was fully aware that its coffee and actions were not reasonable having placed labels to illustrate the threat that the coffee was subjected to (McAdams et al, 2015). They also understood that the coffee was to be consumed at the location which implied that it created a major threat.

Conclusion

The ruling in support of the plaintiff was indeed justifiable as the restaurant did not demonstrate any care responsibility for its actions in general thus leading to harm. The coffee should have been at a lower temperature to assert the safety of the consumers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

McAdams, T. et al. (2015). Law, Business and Society (11th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rosenfeld, J. (2015). Liebeck v. McDonald’s: The Hot Coffee Controversy. Retrieved from https://www.rosenfeldinjurylawyers.com/news/liebeck-v-mcdonalds-the-hot-coffee-controversy/