Introduction to Legal Research Essay Example for Free

Introduction to Legal Research Essay Facts: Samantha Smith, a young and single mother, was shopping in the bath aisle of the local grocery store in Indiana. At approximately 1:30 pm she slipped and fell on a clear shampoo that had leaked out of one of the bottles and onto the floor. The aisle had been inspected, logged as clear of any dangerous hazards at 1:00 pm by an older employee who requires glasses. As a result of the fall, Samantha was transported to the hospital where she was admitted overnight and diagnosed with a broken hip. She will require many months of physical therapy. Samantha has no healthcare insurance coverage to cover any of her expenses and is responsible for a two year old son. Issue: Did the grocery store have knowledge of the hazardous substance on the floor, therefore being held liable for the injuries that Samantha sustained? Rule: The grocery store can only be held liable if it had knowledge of the hazardous condition. Breach of duty is defined as â€Å"the violation of a legal or moral obligation; the failure to act as the law obligates one to act; especially a fiduciary’s violation of an obligation owed to another.† Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (9th ed. 2009) Negligence is defined as â€Å"the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm.† Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009)  Analysis: Samantha is not able to prove that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous substance on the floor; therefore, the grocery store was not negligent in its duty to the customer and cannot be held liable for Samantha’s injuries. Conclusion: It is not likely that Samantha will be awarded damages for her injuries because she cannot show proof that the grocery store had any knowledge of the hazardous spill on the floor. Vaughn v. National Tea Co., 328 F.2d 128 (7th Cir. 1964)  Facts: The Plaintiff, Vaughn, slipped and on a piece of lettuce and fell on the floor while shopping at National Tea Company. The store employee stated under testimony that she did not recall cleaning or picking up anything off of the aisle the day before the slip and fall occurred. The lettuce had multiple step marks on it which indicated that it had been there for a while. As a result of the slip and fall, Vaughn ruptured a disc in her back that resulted in the need for surgery. Vaughn filed a lawsuit against the National Tea Company for damages for the injuries she sustained. A jury found the Defendant guilty and awarded damages to Vaughn in the amount of $25,000. See more: how to write an introduction paragraph National Tea Company appealed the case stating there was no proof of negligence. Issue: Did National Tea Company have any knowledge of the lettuce on the floor which would ultimately hold them liable for the Vaughn’s injuries? Rule: Negligence is defined as â€Å"the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm.† Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009) Evidence showed that the lettuce had been stepped on multiple times and, therefore, the jury could find that it was on the floor ample enough time for someone at the store to have a duty to clean it up. Analysis: The jury held that National Tea Company was negligent and a breach of duty occurred because they lettuce was on the floor for a long enough time period to be noticed and removed; therefore, Vaughn was awarded dama ges. Carmichael v. Kroger, 654 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) Facts: Carmichael was shopping in the dairy aisle at Kroger and at approximately 2:00 pm slipped on a broken egg. As a result, Carmichael filed a lawsuit against Kroger for damages as a result of the slip and fall. Records show that a Kroger employee checked the dairy aisle just after 2:00 pm the same day and confirmed that there was no hazardous material on the floor. Carmichael was unable to prove to the Court that Kroger knew about the broken egg on the floor; therefore, Kroger was not found negligent or liable for Carmichael’s injuries. Issue: Did Kroger know about the broken egg on the floor which in turn would hold them liable for  Carmichael’s injuries? Rule: Liability cannot be imposed if Kroger was not aware of the broken egg on the floor. Negligence is defined as â€Å"the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm.† Black’s Law Dictionary 1133 (9th ed. 2009)  Analysis: Carmichael failed to prove to the Court that Kroger had any knowledge of the broken egg on the floor that created a hazard; therefore, Kroger was not negligent in its duty of care to Carmichael and cannot be held liable for Carmichael’s injuries. Conclusion: The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision that Carmichael failed to prove negligence and breach of duty.

Terrorism Essay: American Gestapo :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics

American Gestapo A land that calls itself the "Beacon of Freedom and Democracy" has strange ways of demonstrating the accuracy of this claim. Tuesday its leader signed an executive order to the defense department that allows suspected terrorists to be tried by US military courts in US or abroad (provided the suspects are not US citizens). The orders are said to include people who have "aided or abetted" terrorists or those aiming to "to cause injury to the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy or economy." "It is not practicable..." it says, to apply "...the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized..." The military tribunals will be allowed secret, closed hearings and can sentence suspects by a majority of two thirds of the judges (US officers of the armed forces). Same majority is needed to give the verdict of execution. No appeal is possible. First we have the interesting fact that even though the "Declaration of Independence", so hallowed by US of A, says that "all men are created equal" it seems very clear that to the present regime US citizens are "more" equal than non-citizens. Secondly, the notion that US arrogantly claims the right to set up military tribunals on foreign soil, secretly or not, to try foreign nationals, is an outrage to all democratically minded people around throughout world with more than the faintest notion of legality and justice. Thirdly the sweeping powers of the tribunals will be on a scale inviting the police fascist state to emerge without much to stop it. The Gestapo in Nazi Germany had those kinds of powers. There was no appeal to verdicts and decisions were made in secret by people there to "defend" the state against "terrorists" and other enemies. In combination with all the other anti-terrorist laws (and secret orders), that have been signed by the US president, its defense Secretary and Secretary of Justice, that discard like wasted stationery many amendments in the Bill of Rights (wiretapping, spying, searches, detention etc), this order adds to the undermining of the foundation of legality in a way that can be used by unscrupulous men to limit the freedoms of citizens in pursuing their own agenda. Gestapo didn't discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, btw. It is not unknown that certain states have decided, usually after meetings with some high-ranking military or politicians, to execute people considered to be a danger to the nation, the system or the regime. Terrorism Essay: American Gestapo :: Argumentative Persuasive Topics American Gestapo A land that calls itself the "Beacon of Freedom and Democracy" has strange ways of demonstrating the accuracy of this claim. Tuesday its leader signed an executive order to the defense department that allows suspected terrorists to be tried by US military courts in US or abroad (provided the suspects are not US citizens). The orders are said to include people who have "aided or abetted" terrorists or those aiming to "to cause injury to the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy or economy." "It is not practicable..." it says, to apply "...the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized..." The military tribunals will be allowed secret, closed hearings and can sentence suspects by a majority of two thirds of the judges (US officers of the armed forces). Same majority is needed to give the verdict of execution. No appeal is possible. First we have the interesting fact that even though the "Declaration of Independence", so hallowed by US of A, says that "all men are created equal" it seems very clear that to the present regime US citizens are "more" equal than non-citizens. Secondly, the notion that US arrogantly claims the right to set up military tribunals on foreign soil, secretly or not, to try foreign nationals, is an outrage to all democratically minded people around throughout world with more than the faintest notion of legality and justice. Thirdly the sweeping powers of the tribunals will be on a scale inviting the police fascist state to emerge without much to stop it. The Gestapo in Nazi Germany had those kinds of powers. There was no appeal to verdicts and decisions were made in secret by people there to "defend" the state against "terrorists" and other enemies. In combination with all the other anti-terrorist laws (and secret orders), that have been signed by the US president, its defense Secretary and Secretary of Justice, that discard like wasted stationery many amendments in the Bill of Rights (wiretapping, spying, searches, detention etc), this order adds to the undermining of the foundation of legality in a way that can be used by unscrupulous men to limit the freedoms of citizens in pursuing their own agenda. Gestapo didn't discriminate between nationals and non-nationals, btw. It is not unknown that certain states have decided, usually after meetings with some high-ranking military or politicians, to execute people considered to be a danger to the nation, the system or the regime.

Myth on Change Management

Bill, lost his job recently. It seems his company was downsized, his well developed skills were no longer required. It's tempting to claim his company was at fault. But the fault was his and his alone. Let me explain why. Things are changing incredibly fast. Yesterday's idea, is an emerging technology today, mainstream news tomorrow and history by next week. And†¦ everyone contributes to the speed of change. There's a myth about management, since we're responsible for so much change, we must be good at coping with it. I've observed the exact opposite. Managers have great difficulty accepting change. They tend to get complacent in their ‘secure' status quo. They believe the skills they've acquired, will serve them well into the future, in spite of all Take a close look at business magazines. Each issue offers something new, something different. Each advertisement promises to increase productivity, to increase efficiency, to inflict change upon our unsuspecting organization. Used properly, magazines are a guidepost to the future. Ignore them and they'll get you downsized. Bill acquired his management skills in the trenches. He worked his way up through the ranks. He acquired a set of skills, and over the years, deepened them. He began to believe his tool kit of management techniques was complete. They'd served him well in the past, and would suffice in the future. Bill's error was not in his judgment of whether or not a particular skill was long lasting. Bill's error had little if anything to do with ‘management skills.' His error lay in his world view. He believed his world would stay the same. Somehow he's protected from change. Somehow he alone is immune. Shielded in immunity, he gives no thought to a ‘different' tomorrow. He leans on his illusion of status quo, even while destroying the status quo of others. He's not alone in this. He's joined by politicians, unions, successful companies, staff, by anyone and everyone who's comfortable with past achievements. How do you prepare for the future? Step one is trivial†¦ Acknowledge uncertainty. That alone, will keep you from being complacent. That alone, will have you thinking about alternatives. That alone, will remind you that you're not alone. Everybody is faced with the same uncertainty. Welcome to the future! Next – you're not your business card. No matter what your title, no matter what your function, you're more than a ‘box' on an org chart. You're a collection of skills with the ability to learn new ones. These steps do little to change the future. Accepting uncertainty and solid self assessment is a good strategy, but without a plan of action, they'll add up to nothing. Assume you're fired tomorrow, what would you do? Sounds drastic, but it happens every day to thousands of people from ‘every walk of life.' So why not to you? What better time to contemplate it, than today, when you still have a job, and time to plan? Bill lost his job because he couldn't see beyond his status quo. Don't make that same mistake, contemplate this issue of Words of Mouth devoted to Change. Ask the question†¦ â€Å"What's my place in the uncertainty I'm helping create?† Then leap into your future. What is the only thing constant in our lives? CHANGE impacts everything we do and is never-ending. Whether technological, psychological, physical or emotional in nature, we must learn how to deal with change effectively if In programs I have conducted for clients, their most frequent requests are in two areas: 1.What do I do with negative people? 2.How can I get people motivated? It could be argued these two areas have always been important. I have noticed the need for assistance with these areas is in direct proportion to the changes the organization is experiencing. We all go along our â€Å"merry-little-way† until one day and †¦ boom †¦ change appears. The change is sometimes our own doing but more often beyond our immediate control. When this occurs, the response is sometimes demonstrated in negativity or in an unwillingness to move. This constant newness is outside many people's comfort zones and they are confused as to how they should respond. My clients know change is inevitable and yet have staff who are reluctant to embrace the constantly changing environment. It may be management themselves who are reluctant to adopt the changes necessary for organizational success. Management and staff must deal with technological, psychological and personal changes, all of which impact on performance. People handle change in different ways. It is estimated as high as 78% of people are followers †¦ they do not want to be first at anything. They would rather wait until something happens and then copy what they see. Approximately 5% are leaders. The remaining 17% have no idea where everybody else went! I work with the 5 percenters who want to learn approaches which will produce the best results through encouraging the 78% to follow and drag along the 17% who aren't quite sure what is happening. I will never suggest all change will be enjoyable. I believe we have to learn to adapt to it. The good news about change is it happens so quickly that if you don't like the change, just wait and it will change again soon. The bad news is if you do like the change you had better enjoy it now because it will not be here very long. What can we do? I have found one of the biggest roadblocks to personal adaptation to change is the belief we can just relax in what I call the coast mode. Do you know anyone in the coast modeÉjust coasting, coasting? The problem is there is only one way you can coast and that is downhill. The last person to realize you are coasting is usually yourself. Each of us knows at least one person in our personal lives who is going downhill and has not realized it yet. Your staff sees you every day and will very quickly recognize which way you are going. In a terrific book I recently read entitled Flight Of The Buffalo by James A. Belasco and Ralph C. Stayer, the realization of managers that â€Å"I Am The Problem† is the first step in overcoming the â€Å"What do I do with negative people or How do I motivate people?† problems. Demonstrating calculated risk-taking and encouraging staff to do likewise creates a different mind-set towards change. People who are not encouraged to take risks will not. All of us have failed at least once in our lives. What do we remember longest†¦good experiences or bad? The bad ones discourage us about additional attempts. Overcoming our negative programming about failure is a key step towards meeting the challenge of change. Working with, or worse still, living with someone who does not want to change can be a very frustrating experience.

Corporate Social Responsibility ( Csr ) - 1314 Words

Social responsibility has become a primal interest to the humankind for the past two decades. In the earlier days, the firms and organizations concentrated only on the financial part of the business and ignored the ethical, social and moral sectors. But in the recent times, the businesses are getting a grip of the significance of the social, ecological and environmental effects on their success. This has resulted in the emerging interactions between organizations and social segments thus giving rise to corporate social responsibility (CSR) . This paper discusses about the ways and methods of CSRs that are applied in the University of Wisconsin and the impact these methods created on the social, environmental and ecological fronts of the†¦show more content†¦The CSR has become an integral part of all the international business activities and catching up as a main stream activity with the educational institutions and universities . The University of Wisconsin has also done its part in dedicating its financial resources and man power to fulfill the implementations of the CSRs for the past one and half centuries. Adhere to the Corporate social responsibilities has started in the UW not in the recent times but dated way back to the 19th century. The University of Wisconsin tightly adheres to corporate social responsibility shaped up in the name of â€Å"Wisconsin Idea†. The idea was first attributed to UW President Charles Van Hise in 1904. . It suggests the principle that education should influence and improve people’s lives beyond the university premises . In the earlier days of 20th century, the university has helped the state in all the segments from state administration to dairy farm economy . The university faculty has teamed up with the legislators to help guiding the state’s administration by applying their academic knowledge. They drafted some of the nation’s finest laws which include tax reforms, nation’s first workers’ compensation and public utility regulation . The farming industry was the largest revenue generating industry in Wisconsi n those days. Hence the university also helped the state on the dairy and agricultural front by research breakthroughs and new