Results 1 to 7 of 7

    • Join Date: Sep 2007
    • Posts: 4
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #1

    Punctuation...My Biggest nightmare.

    Hi All,

    Tjis is my first post here and I hope youcan help. This is my first year at college and I am taking a law course. I am required to analyze four cases and submitt my analysis in writting.
    My problem is punctuation. I never get it right and I would be extremely gratefull if some one can go over the analysis that I already wrote for the first two cases and proof read for me.

    Following are the cases:


    Case 2

    In the case of Marge v. Dr.Hibbert Marge could sue Dr.Hibbert for battery. Lionel Hutz could establish that the bone biopsy which Dr.Hibbert performed on Marge constitutes battery. Although the action of performing the bone biopsy didn’t cause any harm (the harm was caused by lifting weight) it still can constitute battery by itself since it violates Marge’s right to control her body and who touches it. Mr.Hutz could argue that there has been a deliberate physical interference (namely, the bone biopsy) with Marge’s body and that her consent only covers a muscle biopsy and doesn’t include the performed bone biopsy.

    In the same case Marge could sue Dr.Hibbert for negligence. Mr.Hutz could argue that Dr.Hibbert’s negligence resulted in the injury that was caused to Marge when she lifted weight. This could be done by establishing that Dr.Hibbert’s failure to inform Marge about the bone biopsy that was performed on her and to convey the appropriate instructions for her safety after the surgery is considered a careless behaviour. Moreover, he could argue that the duty of care exists as it is reasonably foreseeable that Dr.Hibbert’s behaviour can and did cause harm to Marge. It is also reasonable to claim that had Dr.Hibbert thought of it, he would’ve realized that his failure to convey to Marge enough information about her situation could put her at the risk of breaking her leg. Dr.Hibbert is an adult whose behaviour put Marge at risk of breaking her leg; furthermore, his behaviour is not expected from a reasonable and professional doctor. Therefore, when applying the reasonable person test to determine the level of care that should have been exercised Mr.Hutz can safely claim that Dr.Hibbert’s conduct has fallen below the reasonable standards. The fact that Marge already broke her leg and that she broke her leg at the exact location of the bone biopsy could help Mr.Hutz establish that the damage is present and that it is a direct result of careless behaviour. But for Dr.Hibberts careless behaviour, no injury would’ve been caused to Marge.

    Dr.Hibbert’s lawyer could defend his client against the battery charges by arguing that the bone biopsy was consensual since the consent that Marge signed contained a statement saying that she also consents to further and alternate measures as may be found necessary during the course of the operation. The bone biopsy can be argued to be a necessary further measure.

    To avoid the negligence claims Dr.Hibbert’s lawyer could argue that Marge was also careless, thus, contributing to her own loss. Since Marge just recently went through a surgery and since she was discharged with crutches, Dr.Hibbert’s lawyer could argue that a reasonable person would’ve been more careful and wouldn’t expose their leg to pressure until it’s completely recovered.

    The likely outcome of this case is that the court will find Dr. Hibbert not guilty for battery. This is because the consent signed by Marge contains a clause were she consents to further and alternate measures as found necessary. The court will find Dr.Hibbert guilty for negligence as the duty to exercise care is established, there was a breach of the standard of care, causation is established and damage was evident. However, the court will take into consideration that Marge contributed –to some extent- to her injury. Therefore, the court will apportion responsibility between Dr.Hibbert and Marge depending on the extent of each party’s negligence.

    If it was established that Marge had brittle bones and that her leg would not have broken had her bones been healthy the legal causation in this case could be questioned as the damage couldn’t be reasonably foreseeable, however, the result of the case will still be the same. This is due to the thin skull rule. Dr.Hibbert can’t avoid responsibility by claiming that he couldn’t reasonably be expected to foresee Marge’s special condition. This is similar to the case of Smith v. Leech Brain and Co. Referred to in the text book at the bottom of page 154.


    Case 3
    In this case Millhouse has a cause of action against the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and his cause of action is negligence. Although Lenny is the one who struck Millhouse, as Millhouse’s lawyer in order to get a better settlement I will advise him to sue the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant rather than simply suing Lenny.

    The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant organized their annual picnic at a local park and it is their responsibility to make sure that their event doesn’t result in public or private harm. They provided their guests with food and beverages including alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine. As a result of that it is safe to assume that the Springfield Nuclear Power plant knew that some people will drink and some will get drunk and it is their responsibility to make sure the ones who got drunk doesn’t drive.

    My claim against the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant can be established by proving that all the ingredients of negligence exist in this case. It is safe to say that it is reasonably foreseeable that allowing people to drive after they get drunk in Springfield nuclear Power Plant annual picnic will result in somebody getting hurt. It is obvious by the presence of chief Wiggum that the SNPP officials who organized this event had thought that someone might get drunk and drive which will pose a risk of danger to others. Therefore, the duty to exercise care exists in this situation and the fact that Lenny and Carl who were visibly intoxicated were able to walk to Lenny’s car without anyone stopping them proves that the SNPP failed to live up to the duty to be careful.

    When organizing a picnic for all the employees of a nuclear plant in a public space it is reasonably expected to have more than one personnel to control the crowd and make sure that no one gets out of hand. Therefore, we can safely establish that the conduct of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant of not providing enough policing for the event has fallen below the reasonable standards, consequently, resulting in the injury of Millhouse. The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant should have exercised greater vigilance in supervising its employees who are on a picnic in a public area with access to free liquor. Furthermore, a nuclear power plant who deals with hazardous materials is assumed to be more cautious when it comes to safety issues. Therefore it is safe to claim that the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant has failed the reasonable person test and was in breach of the standards of care.

    In this case the damage is evident with the serious injuries that were caused to Millhouse. Furthermore, we can claim that injuries that were caused to Millhouse were a direct result of Springfield Nuclear Power Plant’s careless behaviour. But for the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant’s careless behaviour of not sufficiently policing their event and controlling their employees, Lenny wouldn’t have been able to get to his car and drive while he was drunk and consequently hit Millhouse. Therefore, it is safe to claim that the legal and physical causation as well as the damage are present in this case.

    In their defence the defendants could argue that although it may have been reasonably foreseeable that injuries to the public could’ve been caused if the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant were careless in organizing their event and controlling their crowd, there is insufficient proximity between the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and Millhouse, therefore, negating the duty of care.

    They could also argue that they were not in breach of the standards of care. The presence of Chief Wiggum could be considered as sufficient and the fact that Lenny and Carl were able to get to Lenny car and drive away is due to them sneaking out to Carl’s car. The evidence to this is that no one else caused any problems during the picnic.

    The likely outcome of this case is that the case will be dismissed in favour of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. The reason is the insufficient proximity between the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and Millhouse. This is similar to the case of Cooper v. Hobart which can be found in the text book on page 149.

    Your help is Very Much-Appreciated and thanks again.


    Yazan
    Last edited by Di7bash; 30-Sep-2007 at 00:24.

  1. Fleur de mort
    Guest
    #2

    Re: Punctuation...My Biggest nightmare.

    ya hala we ya mar7ab bak ya di7bashi laow teshti aey khedma ta5zeenat qaat lawo shoyeat arqillah 7athreen lol
    welcome to the forum.


    • Join Date: Oct 2006
    • Posts: 19,448
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #3

    Re: Punctuation...My Biggest nightmare.

    Welcome to the forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by Di7bash View Post
    Hi All,


    Case 2

    In the case of Marge v. Dr.Hibbert, Marge could sue Dr.Hibbert for battery. Lionel Hutz could establish that the bone biopsy which Dr.Hibbert performed on Marge constitutes battery. Although the action of performing the bone biopsy didnít cause any harm (the harm was caused by lifting weight), it still can constitute battery by itself since it violates Margeís right to control her body and who touches it. Mr.Hutz could argue that there has been a deliberate physical interference (namely, the bone biopsy) with Margeís body and that her consent only covers a muscle biopsy and doesnít include the performed bone biopsy.

    In the same case Marge could sue Dr.Hibbert for negligence. Mr.Hutz could argue that Dr.Hibbertís negligence resulted in the injury that was caused to Marge when she lifted weight. This could be done by establishing that Dr.Hibbertís failure to inform Marge about the bone biopsy that was performed on her and [or] to convey the appropriate instructions for her safety after the surgery is considered a careless behaviour. Moreover, he could argue that the duty of care exists, as it is reasonably foreseeable that Dr.Hibbertís behaviour can and did cause harm to Marge. It is also reasonable to claim that had Dr.Hibbert thought of it, he wouldíve [have] realized that his failure to convey to Marge enough information about her situation could put her at the risk of breaking her leg. Dr.Hibbert is an adult whose behaviour put Marge at risk of breaking her leg; furthermore, his behaviour is not [that] expected from a reasonable and professional doctor. Therefore, when applying the reasonable person test to determine the level of care that should have been exercised, Mr.Hutz can safely claim that Dr.Hibbertís conduct has fallen below the reasonable standards. The fact that Marge [had] already broken her leg and that she broke her leg at the exact location of the bone biopsy could help Mr.Hutz establish that the damage is present and that it is a direct result of careless behaviour. But for Dr.Hibbert's careless behaviour, no injury wouldíve [have]been caused to Marge.

    Dr.Hibbertís lawyer could defend his client against the battery charges by arguing that the bone biopsy was consensual since the consent that Marge signed contained a statement saying that she also consents to further and alternate measures as may be found necessary during the course of the operation. The bone biopsy can be argued to be a necessary further measure.

    To avoid the negligence claims Dr.Hibbertís lawyer could argue that Marge was also careless, thus contributing to her own loss. Since Marge just recently went through a surgery [surgical procedure] and since she was discharged with crutches, Dr.Hibbertís lawyer could argue that a reasonable person wouldíve [have]been more careful and wouldnít [not]expose their leg to pressure until itís [it had] completely recovered.

    The likely outcome of this case is that the court will find Dr. Hibbert not guilty for battery. This is because the consent signed by Marge contains a clause where she consents to further and alternate measures as found necessary. The court will find Dr.Hibbert guilty for negligence as the duty to exercise care is established, there was a breach of the standard of care, causation is established and damage was evident. However, the court will take into consideration that Marge contributed Ėto some extent- to her injury. Therefore, the court will apportion responsibility between Dr.Hibbert and Marge depending on the extent of each partyís negligence.

    If it was established that Marge had brittle bones and that her leg would not have broken had her bones been healthy, the legal causation in this case could be questioned as the damage couldnít [not] be reasonably foreseeable. However, the result of the case will still be the same. This is due to the thin skull rule. Dr.Hibbert canít [cannot] avoid responsibility by claiming that he couldnít [not] reasonably be expected to foresee Margeís special condition. This is similar to the case of Smith v. Leech Brain and Co., referred to in the text book at the bottom of page 154.


    Case 3
    In this case Millhouse has a cause of action against the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and his cause of action is negligence. Although Lenny is the one who struck Millhouse, as Millhouseís lawyer in order to get a better settlement I will advise him to sue the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant rather than simply suing Lenny.

    The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant organized their annual picnic at a local park and it is their responsibility to make sure that their event doesnít result in public or private harm. They provided their guests with food and beverages including alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine. As a result of that it is safe to assume that the Springfield Nuclear Power plant knew that some people will drink and some will get drunk and it is their responsibility to make sure the ones who got drunk doesnít [do not] drive.

    My claim against the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant can be established by proving that all the ingredients of negligence exist in this case. It is safe to say that it is reasonably foreseeable that allowing people to drive after they get drunk in Springfield nuclear Power Plant annual picnic will result in somebody getting hurt. It is obvious by the presence of Chief Wiggum that the SNPP officials who organized this event had thought that someone might get drunk and drive which will pose a risk of danger to others. Therefore, the duty to exercise care exists in this situation and the fact that Lenny and Carl, who were visibly intoxicated, were able to walk to Lennyís car without anyone stopping them proves that the SNPP failed to live up to the duty to be careful.

    When organizing a picnic for all the employees of a nuclear plant in a public space it is reasonably expected to have more than one personnel [person] to control the crowd and make sure that no one gets out of hand. Therefore, we can safely establish that the conduct of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant of not providing enough policing for the event has fallen below the reasonable standards, consequently resulting in the injury of [to] Millhouse. The Springfield Nuclear Power Plant should have exercised greater vigilance in supervising its employees who are on a picnic in a public area with access to free liquor. Furthermore, a nuclear power plant who deals with hazardous materials is assumed to be more cautious when it comes to safety issues. Therefore it is safe to claim that the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant has failed the reasonable person test and was in breach of the standards of care.

    In this case the damage is evident with the serious injuries that were caused to Millhouse. Furthermore, we can claim that injuries that were caused to Millhouse were a direct result of Springfield Nuclear Power Plantís careless behaviour. But for the Springfield Nuclear Power Plantís careless behaviour of not sufficiently policing their event and controlling their employees, Lenny wouldnít have been able to get to his car and drive while he was drunk and consequently hit Millhouse. Therefore, it is safe to claim that the legal and physical causation as well as the damage are present in this case.

    In their defence the defendants could argue that although it may have been reasonably foreseeable that injuries to the public couldíve [might have] been caused if the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant were careless in organizing their event and controlling their crowd, there is insufficient proximity between the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and Millhouse, therefore negating the duty of care.

    They could also argue that they were not in breach of the standards of care. The presence of Chief Wiggum could be considered as sufficient and the fact that Lenny and Carl were able to get to Lenny's car and drive away is due to them sneaking out to Carlís car. The evidence to[for] this is that no one else caused any problems during the picnic.

    The likely outcome of this case is that the case will be dismissed in favour of the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant. The reason is the insufficient proximity between the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and Millhouse. This is similar to the case of Cooper v. Hobart which can be found in the text book on page 149.

    As a matter of practice, do not use abbreviations in this kind of formal legal writing.


    • Join Date: Sep 2007
    • Posts: 4
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #4

    Re: Punctuation...My Biggest nightmare.

    Thanks a bunch Anglika. I am amazed by the prompt reply. Your comments are much-appreciated and will be taken into consideration in further writtings.

    Fleur de mort,,, Lao kan fe qat kont ma a7tajt wa7ed yesa3edne fe al assignment hathee. looooool.
    Thanks for the warm welcome. Where are you from though? I have a feeling that we know each other...Please tell me I am wrong.

  2. Fleur de mort
    Guest
    #5

    Re: Punctuation...My Biggest nightmare.

    Quote Originally Posted by Di7bash View Post
    Fleur de mort,,, Lao kan fe qat kont ma a7tajt wa7ed yesa3edne fe al assignment hathee. looooool.
    Thanks for the warm welcome. Where are you from though? I have a feeling that we know each other...Please tell me I am wrong.
    No I don't know you. But your name is so funny hehehe. And as you saw I can speak yemeni dialect well although it's too hard for some Arab speakers.
    mshabbih 3alaeyah be 7ad?

  3. RonBee's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Feb 2003
    • Posts: 16,570
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #6

    Re: Punctuation...My Biggest nightmare.

    A point of usage:
    Say guilty of (not guilty for).
    ~R


    • Join Date: Sep 2007
    • Posts: 4
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #7

    Re: Punctuation...My Biggest nightmare.

    Quote Originally Posted by RonBee View Post
    A point of usage:
    Say guilty of (not guilty for).
    ~R
    Thanks a lot for the addition.

    Peace out!

Similar Threads

  1. Punctuation in a question
    By musicgold in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 26-Jul-2007, 21:14
  2. Punctuation task
    By qureshi in forum Analysing and Diagramming Sentences
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-Mar-2007, 06:37
  3. Punctuation
    By shadowtigerl in forum Editing & Writing Topics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-Dec-2006, 23:38
  4. Punctuation help, please.
    By inalather in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-Sep-2006, 03:27
  5. Punctuation in the Legal Field
    By lurontierney in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15-Jun-2005, 10:26

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •