The Law of Torts, Product and Service Liability Law Assignment

The Law of Torts, Product and Service obligation Law - Assignment ExampleAgainst this background, this essay seeks to critically analyse the wooings of Haimes v Temple University Hospital 1981 and the Vandev hold backer v Sheetz, INC 1998. Based on the law of torts and product and service liability laws, the essay seeks to compare and contrast the facts, law, and merits of the both lawsuits. The paper will also evaluate aspects related to the facts, recognizes, judgment, as wellhead as ethical issue related to the two cases. A summary of the main points discussed will be given at the end of the essay. In the case of Haimes v. Temple University Hospital 1981 it can be noted that much of the plaintiffs testimony have-to doe with her psychic activities and her inability to practice these activities following the CT scan. To read an aura, according to plaintiff, it is necessary to go into an change state, a state of deep concentration. She complains that her psychic activities hav e been negatively impacted and she can no longstanding perform the tasks she used to do. It can be seen that this affected the occupation of the plaintiff and this is the reason why she got a favourable judgement. The jury gave the finding of fact in the amount of $600000 which included Dr. Haimes loss of a consortium. In eyeshot of the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238, the verdict was molded to include delay damages of $386,465.75 and this brought the innate award to $986,465.75. However, the motion for a new trial of the hospital and the doctor was granted given that the verdict was considered as grossly excessive as to shock the courts sense of justice. In the case of Vandevender v Sheetz, INC 1997, the employee sustained a back injury at wrench and she was not permitted to return to work by the employer as a result of specific restrictions. She then appealed and punitive damages were awarded as a result of the unlawful termination of her employment. However, the pun itive damages were found to be excessive since they did not establish with the actual harm as well as termination of employment run intoed by the plaintiff. A approximate analysis of the case shows that the appellee was treated badly by the appellant, and that the appellant should have to pay her a reasonably amount of damages. In this case, the appelle was awarded $ 293,866.00 in compensatory and noneconomic damages for missing essentially four weeks of work as well as other related ill-treatment she received. However, an award of $ 2,232,740 is considered as too much. From the above cases, it can be noted that in order to prove the existence of day care business, some conditions should prevail where a defendant can be taken to court if this duty is breached. Thus, the case of Capiro Industries vs. Dickman (1990), suggests that the following conditions should prevail in order for the plaintiff to win the case and these include foreseeability, proximity as well as reasonability . terrycloth & Giugni (2009) concurs with this notion when he says that the following elements should be proved by the plaintiff in order to be successful in winning the claim. There is need to show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, this duty has been breached by falling below expected standards, the defendants conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer physical or economic harm (causation) and the injury suffered was remote or foreseeable. However, it is not always abstemious to prove that the