Zachar Law Blog

You Be The Judge: False Imprisonment?

FALSE IMPRISONMENT?

Deanna entered a store, purchased a few items, and left.  As she was getting into her car, a man showing a badge approached her and asked to see her purse.  There were no other customers in the vicinity.  She voluntarily showed it to him.  He then asked her about a particular bracelet that was in the purse, and she showed that to him.  There was no intimidation by the employee, and after the incident, he allowed her to go on her way.

Deanna filed a lawsuit for false imprisonment, claiming that she had been held against her will, and that she had suffered humiliation while being falsely detained by the employee of the store.

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Deanna?

The court ruled against Deanna.  The evidence showed that she consented to the inspection, and was not detained against her will.  The evidence further showed that she was not afraid of the store employees, and as there was no one else around, she could not recover for the humiliation claim.

Brought to you by Zachar Law Firm

You Be The Judge: The Good Samaritan?

THE GOOD SAMARITAN?

A woman was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision on a country road.  Before emergency vehicle could arrive, an off-duty family practice doctor was driving by and stopped at the scene.  He decided to see if he could help. 

The doctor did his best to help the woman, but he did not have the necessary skills to perform emergency care.  When the paramedics arrived, they prepped and transferred her to the hospital, where she later died.  The woman’s husband sued both the off-duty physician and the hospital.  The doctor claimed he was immune from liability under the Good Samaritan statute, which protects off-duty doctors who respond to emergencies.

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST the Doctor?

The court ruled FOR the doctor, and against the woman’s husband.  The court agreed that the doctor should not be punished for responding to an emergency medical request when he was not obligated to do so.

Verdict:   $0

Brought to you by Zachar Law Firm

You Be The Judge: The Soccer Tackle

THE SOCCER TACKLE

During a soccer game, Kruger tackled Fanelli and severely injured him.  The play was ruled a blatant foul.  Although Kruger contended it was unintentional, he was red-carded and asked to leave the field.  Thereafter, Fanelli sued Kruger for his injuries, arguing that hard foul had caused his injury.  Kruger asserted that the tackle was just a part of the game, and that Fanelli consented to the risk of injury when he decided to play.

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Fanelli?

The court ruled FOR Fanelli.  The court ruled that players do assume responsibility for injury when they play a game, however, because of the extreme nature of the foul, the court found that Kruger’s actions had “fallen far below the standards reasonably to be expected of anyone playing the game.”

 

Verdict:  For Fanelli

You Be The Judge: A Fight Over Blood

A FIGHT OVER BLOOD

Patnode caused a serious traffic accident in which two people were killed.  Patnode was himself knocked unconscious.  At the scene of the accident, the police obtained a warrant and took a blood sample from Patnode for testing.  The subsequent tests revealed that his blood had a high alcohol level, and Patnode was arrested at the hospital for drunk driving. Patnode hired an attorney, who argued that the blood test should not be admitted into evidence because it had been taken without his consent.

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Patnode?

The court ruled AGAINST Patnode.  In Arizona, a person voluntarily agrees to provide a breath, urine and/or blood sample when requested to do so by a police offer.  As Patnode was unconscious, and as the police had a warrant, there was no unconstitutional “search”.    The court held that the blood test was admissible, and Patnode was convicted of DUI.

 

Judgment:  Guilty

You Be The Judge: A Fiery Case

A FIERY CASE

Flintstone, a local contractor, built a fire on his property in order to burn some rubbish and building materials.  At the end of the day found the fire still smoking.  He spread out the embers and thought the fire was out.  Soon after, two five year-old boys wandered onto the property.  A flying spark flew up and ignited one of the boys’ clothing, severely burning him.  The boy's family sued Flintstone for negligence.

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Flintsone?

The court ruled FOR Flintstone, and against the family.  Notwithstanding his “tender years,” the boy was a trespasser who went onto the property at his own risk.  Flintstone acted reasonably, believed he had extinguished the fire, and had no reason to expect or anticipate any intruders onto his property. The court ruled that he owed no duty to the injured boy.

 

Verdict:  $0

You Be The Judge: The Skating Mishap

THE SKATING MISHAP

Mr. Axen ran an ice skating rink called “The Ice Palace” that was well maintained and well attended.  One day, Mr. Kempema, a very good skater, began using the rink.  After half an hour of “warm ups”, he began to perform, what was described as “elaborate maneuvers”.  During one of these maneuvers, Mr. Kempema tripped on an “irregularity” in the ice and injured himself.  He sued The Ice Palace for negligence and for not maintaining a hard, smooth surface.  

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Mr. Kempema??

The court ruled AGAINST Mr. Kempema and in favor of The Ice Palace.  The court ruled that the ice rink was adequately maintained for the use of the general public and that Mr. Kempema, as an advanced skater (evidence by his “elaborate maneuvers”) knew well that ice surfaces are never perfect.  The condition of the ice was known to or should have been known to Mr. Kempema. 

 

Verdict Amount:  $0

You Be The Judge: Getting Hammered

GETTING HAMMERED

The DAZ Company was a contractor who was working on building a home. There were various other subcontractors on the job, each with several employees.

After DAZ had completed the exterior of the home, they moved the scaffolding inside to finish the job. One of the employees of another subcontractor thereafter walked into a plank of the scaffolding, knocking a hammer off, which fell out the window and struck and injured a man walking along the road. The man sued DAZ for negligence.

DID THE COURT RULE FOR OR AGAINST THE INJURED MAN?

The court ruled for the injured man. The hammer on the scaffolding did not necessarily create a dangerous condition on the jobsite, but the act of kicking the hammer off the scaffolding onto a nearby innocent bystander was deemed to be negligent. The DAZ Company, as the general contractor, owed duties of care to all. The court ruled that the general contractor was vicariously liable for the negligence of the workers on the job, as it was in the best position to ensure that safety practices and procedures were followed.

The court awarded the injured man his medical expenses, and reasonable compensation for his pain and suffering.

You Be The Judge: Wrongful "Dog Death"

WRONGFUL "DOG DEATH"

Steve, while backing his car out of the driveway, accidentally ran over his roommate’s dog, Buster, who was sleeping in the car’s path.

Buster the dog was so badly injured that he had to be put to sleep.

Steve’s roommate Tom sued Steve for $1,000 in damages, to pay for the veterinarian’s bill and for the loss of his beloved pet.

Tom argued that it was negligence because Steve knew that the dog had a habit of sleeping on the driveway and could not hear the car because Buster was deaf.

Tom sought pain and suffering type damages, for the loss of his companion.  

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Steve?

The court ruled AGAINST Steve on the veterinarian’s bills, and found that he was negligent in the situation because he could have prevented the accident.

The judge awarded Tom compensation for the veterinarian’s costs, but not for the loss of Buster, as there is no clearly established law in Arizona that allows pain and suffering-type compensation for the loss of a pet.

 

You Be The Judge

IS IT SAFE?

Matt, a 13 year old, purchased a device designed to improve one’s golf swing.  It came with the statement, “Completely Safe—Ball Will Not Hit Player.”  However, when Matt used it, a golf ball hit him in the head and he suffered permanent brain damage.  His parents sued the manufacturer, who argued that the statement on the box was not meant as a guaranty of absolute safety.  It claimed that there are risks inherent to playing golf, and Matt assumed those risks in using the device.

 

 

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Matt?

You Be The Judge

 

THE CHILDREN TRAP

In 1969 in a Manitoba park not yet open to the public, there was a large water-filled excavation that had been dug by Nelson, who had been hired by the town to work on the construction of the new park. Two children who lived in the town wandered into the unfinished park and decided to go swimming in the water-filled excavation. They drowned, and their parents filed suit against Nelson, claiming that the excavation was an allurement for children and a dangerous trap.

Did the court rule FOR or AGAINST Nelson?