11-13
Stokes
v. Board of Education of Chicago, 599 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2010)
As explained in the case summary, probable cause
in the jurisdiction requires the defendant to have enough circumstances to
prove that a person or a group of people committed an offense (Kubasek, 2016).
I would then say that the principal did not have probable cause. For probable cause to be effective, a person should not be arrested by
the police based on mere suspicion. There should be a level of absolute
certainty that the suspect committed the crime. In this case, however, the
principal saw a situation that seemed like several women were fighting in the
school’s office. The principal reasoned based on the conflict claims that
happened at Nyokia’s home the previous evening. The requirements around
probable cause are a part of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Its
goal is to protect citizens from undue intrusion by the government into
personal matters. This also means that even the police arrested the four women
without probable cause. The lack of probable cause becomes clear when the
criminal charges are dropped. In other words, the court did not find a reason
(probable cause) to show that the women or defendants committed the crime.
There was, therefore, no reason to persecute them.
11-14
Mzamane v.
Winfrey, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23491 (2010)
The court must have found Oprah Winfrey guilty of the charges of causing
emotional distress to Lerato Nomvuyo Mzamane. It would not matter if the
jurisdiction must be shown physical injury to prove that the infliction of
emotional damage was intentional. Although Mzamane was the headmistress of
Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls (OWLAG), she was not the person who
behaved abusively towards the students. The act was actually committed by one
of the people that work at OWLAG. Winfrey could have tried first to find out
what the headmistress knew about the situation, in case the students reported
the incident, and what she did about it before saying hurtful words. No
injuries or monetary losses occurred during the incident, so Mzamane had to
settle for nominal damages. What the nominal damages would do for Mzamane is to
indicate that it was her legal right to sue Winfrey and that Winfrey’s behaviours
towards her were inappropriate.
11-15
Paine
v. Cason No. 10–1487 (2012)
If the area where the police officer dropped Christina Eilman was known
to be unsafe, the police officer should have known about it. Generally, police
officers have the duty of keeping all people safe, and they must know the areas
known to be notoriously unsafe. Away from this, the police could also see that
Eilman was a white girl. There was no way she would come from a place dominated
by blacks. Moreover, it would be unsafe for an improperly dressed girl to be
dropped in an unsafe neighbourhood. Even if the police officer did not know about
the girl’s mental health condition or her family background, the situations
above prove that the act was wrong. Therefore, the court must have ruled that
the police officer was guilty of negligence claims. With the evidence of injury
caused by Eilman (proof of rape), the court could have added punitive damages
to the suit. The punitive damages in this situation would be used to punish the
police officer for negligent conduct and to set an example for other police
officers to prevent them from committing similar acts.
11-16
Rye
v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, Tenn. App. LEXIS 131 (2014)
If the plaintiffs (Mr. and Mrs.
Rye) provided evidence of the claimed physical injury to Mrs. Rye, and showed
its association with that lack of RhoGAm injection, then the court must have
ruled in their favor. With all this evidence in place, the court would fully
approve the medical malpractice allegations against the defendant. The court
had already received enough proof that Mrs. Rye got Rh-sensitized for lacking
the injection and that this caused her to have Rh-positive blood. Moreover, the
defendant already accepted the family planning program's potential future
disruption. The court would only need evidence of the harm this condition
caused on the mother or her unborn baby or both and the implicated medical
expenses. The court could not have issued punitive damages if no such evidence
was found. The defendant must have paid nominal damages to show acknowledgment of
the fact that the possible disruption of future family planning caused
emotional distress to Mrs. Rye.
11-17
Yonaty
v. Mincolla, WL 1948006 (2012)
It is apparent that Jean Mincolla spread the gay rumour to Mark Yonaty’s
family and close friends to break Yonaty’s relationship with his girlfriend. This
already shows that Mincolla’s behaviour is intentional and is expected to cause
(most probably) emotional pain. Although no monetary losses or physical
injuries would result from Mincolla’s act, Yonaty had the legal right to
declare the defendant’s behaviour offensive, embarrassing, and capable of
defamation. Besides, Mincolla’s argument that gay or bisexual labels are not
shameful is untrue because if it were so, the girlfriend would have no reason
to leave Yonaty. The court should have approved nominal damages sought by
Yonaty to show its approval of Yonaty’s right to seek legal pursuit for
Mincolla’s behaviour and warn individuals of using such labels to defame
others.
11-18
Hastings
v. Sauve 2012 NY Slip Op 02535 (2012)
The liability theory applied to lawsuits based on injuries resulting
from domestic animals in New York requires that a plaintiff demonstrate the
animal owner’s awareness of its ability to behave dangerously (Kubasek, 2016).
In this case, however, Hastings had no way of explaining Sauve’s awareness of
the cow’s dangerous act tendencies. The most probable response from the court
would be to drop the case. Although Hastings crashed her car into Sauve’s cow,
and there are possibilities of physical injuries and damages to her car, the
court lacks the power to act on her case because of the strict lawsuit rules
applied in New York.
11-19
Peshlakai
v. Ruiz, 39 F. Supp. 3d 1264 (d.n.m. 2014)
I think that the court must have accepted the suit and added the
applicable damages. What I mean here is that both James Ruiz, Gilbert Mendoze
and the Applebee Neighbourhood Grill operator were directly or indirectly
responsible for the injuries and deaths of the plaintiffs’ families. Hughes et al. (2012) argued
that the World Health Organisation has identified that the drinking settings contribute
significantly to the harms related to alcohol consumption. They also stated
that bars and nightclubs are better placed to control intoxication and avoid
the dangerous consequences of the same. In these environments, intoxication or
heavy alcohol drinking is caused by, among other factors, the staff practice
and the features of the clientele the venue target. Similarly, Buvik (2013) explained that
there are times when bartenders fail to evaluate the intoxication level of the
customers. The author linked such incidences to a lack of responsible service
at the venue, the acceptance of intoxication in the drinking culture, or a
breach of the Alcohol Act. In such settings, bartenders tend to continue
serving customers as long as they are pleasant and non-confrontational. Moreover,
Galbicsek
(2020) explained that regardless of the amount of alcohol a person consumes,
drinking and driving are not legal. In other words, it is not necessary for a
driver to show signs of intoxication to be considered dangerous.
11-20
2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS Restis v. Am. Coalition against Nuclear Iran, Inc., 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 139402 (s.d.n.y. 2014)
Given that the plaintiff mentioned tortuous interference with his
business, the court would most likely rule in his favour if he provided
evidence that the Uani corporation owner’s actions were purely driven by
malice. Harms to a business relationship have potential links to monetary
losses. This also implies that the Restis sued the defendant to get
compensation. As it is, the court must see the evidence of the allegations
before deciding on the deserving compensatory amount (Kubasek, 2016).
Restis must show the court the extent to which the “name-and-shame campaign”
affected his business and the monetary losses resulting from the damaged
relationship between his shipping company and business partners.