Reference no: EM131334647
Consider Vosburg v. Putney, an 1891 Wisconsin case. Putney, age 11, kicked Vosburg, age 14, in the leg during school. The kick was not very hard - the jury found that "defendant, in touching the plaintiff with his foot, did not intend to do him any harm." However, Vosburg was recovering from an earlier sledding injury to the same spot, and the light kick somehow caused Vosburg to permanently lose the use of his leg. The court ruled that, even though Putney had no way of knowing Vosburg was so fragile, he (his parents) was liable for the harm done.
This is an example of the "eggshell skull" principle in tort law - even if someone has a skull as fragile as an eggshell, if you tap them on the head and break their skull, you're still liable. This is also described as the doctrine that "we take our victims as we find them."
1) If we assume that people are aware of their own frailties, how does this compare to the ruling in Hadley v Baxendale? Do you see a reason for the difference?
2) An alternative rule would be for injurers to be held liable for the harm their actions would have done to a "typical" victim, not the victim they actually injured. Which rule seems better to you? Why?
|
Represents a game theory approach to oligopolistic behavior
: Explain why the "kinked demand curve" model of oligopoly represents a game theory approach to oligopolistic behavior.
|
|
Employment for workers
: Under what elasticity conditions would the following be true? "Increasing the minimum wage will result in a decrease in employment for workers who now earn less than the new minimum wage."
|
|
Which project maximizes shareholder wealth
: Which project maximizes shareholder wealth? Which compensation contract does the manager prefer if this project is chosen?
|
|
Explain a technology-related caution that you would pass
: Recall the preschools you have visited and the DVD program you viewed. Explain a technology-related caution that you would pass along to the family, and cite your reasoning and source(s).
|
|
Compare to the ruling in hadley v baxendale
: 1) If we assume that people are aware of their own frailties, how does this compare to the ruling in Hadley v Baxendale? Do you see a reason for the difference? 2) An alternative rule would be for injurers to be held liable for the harm their ac..
|
|
Noncooperative payoff the case
: An accident has occurred, causing $10,000 in harm to the victim. The amount of harm done is undisputed and easy to prove; punitive damages are not applicable, so any damage award would be for exactly $10,000.
|
|
Advice to the owner of splash
: ACC539, 2016 90, Assessment 3: Cloud On-line Accounting and Systems Documentation. Advice to the owner of Splash! on how their business has performed for the month of December, with particular focus on the profitability of the business? Include rel..
|
|
How can we draw from the provocative calls-to-action made
: How can we draw from the provocative calls-to-action made by Sir Ken Robinson in this week's TED video, Ken Robinson: Bring on the Learning Revolution.
|
|
Copyrights play in the world of the monopolist
: What role do patents, licenses, and copyrights play in the world of the monopolist?
|