Reference no: EM13863048

 the case that should by solve by IRAC format

Terry Williams sustained physical injuries in an accident involving a vehicle driven by Kellie Meagher. At the time of the accident, Meagherwas allegedly using a cellular phone furnished by Cingular Wireless. Williams later sued Meagher and Cingular in an Indiana court. In the portion of the complaint pertaining to Cingular, Williams al-leged that Cingular was negligent in furnishing a cellular phone to Meagher when it knew, or should  have known, that the phone would be used while theuser operated a motor vehicle. Cingular filed a    motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. After the trial court granted ingular's motion, Williams  appealed to the Indiana ourt of Appeals. Was the trial court correct in grant-ing Cingulae s motion to dismiss?

Ludmila Hresil and her niece were shopping at a Sears retail store. There were few shoppers in the store at the time. Hresil spent about 10 minutes in the store's women's department, where she observedno other shoppers.

After Hresil's niece completed a purchase in  another part of the store, the two women began to walk through the women's department.

Hresil, who was pushing a shopping cart,  suddenly lost her balance and struggled to avoid a fall. As she did so, her right leg struck the shopping cart andbegan to swell. Hresil  observed a "gob" on the floor where she had slipped. Later, a Sears employee saidthat "it looked like someone spat on the floor, like it was phlegm." Under the reasonable person standard, did Sears breach a duty to Hresil by not cleaning upthe gob?

Hint: Assume that  Hresil could prove that the gob was on the floor only for the 10 minutes she spent in the women's department.

On April 16, 1947, the SS Grandchamp, a cargo ship owned by the Republic of France and operated by the French Line, was loading a cargo of fertilizer grade.ammonium nitrate (FGAN) at Texas city, texas fire began on board the ship, apparently as a result of a, longshoreman' s having carelessly discarded a cigarette or match into one of the ship's holds. Despite attemps to put out the fire, it   spread quickly. Approxim inptshour after the fire was discovered, the Grandat an exploded with tremendous force. Fire and burning describes spread throughout the waterfront, touching further fires and explosions in other ships, refineries gasoline storage tanks, and chemical plants. W henthe conflagration was over, 500 persons had been killedand more than 3,000 had been injured. The  States paid  out considerable sums to victims of the disaster.

The United States then sought to recoup these payments as damages in a negligence case against theRepublic of France and the  French Line. The evidence revealed that even though ammonium nitrate (which constituted approximately 95 percent of the FGAN) was  known throughout the transportation industry as an oxidizing agent and a fire hazard, no one in chargeon the Grancichamp had made  any attempt to prohibit moking in the ship' s holds. The defendants argued that they should not be held liable because FGAN was not known to be capable of exploding (as opposed to simply being a fire hazard) under circumstances such as those giving rise to the disaster. Did the defendants succeed with this argument?

Staldecker v. Ford Motor Co.  667 N.W.2d 244 (Neb. Sup. Ct. 2003)