United States v. Days Inns of Am., Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Ky. 1998)
In this case, the plaintiff is Federal government and the defendant is Days Inn of American Corporation. The defendant got the lawsuit because they fall to design and construct the disable accessible facility when connect the new construction or alternations. In generally, the plaintiff wants to win just need to demonstrate three categories things. First is demonstrated there is unequal treatment for individuals disable; second is that demonstrated that disable is difficult or impossible to gain access or use some area or feature; the third is that demonstrated their exist the potential safety hazard for disable. The defendant agreed that they needs to repair to follow the ADA regulations.
However the plaintiff lose the lawsuit, because plaintiff accused the franchisor of the company. In the § 302 there is clearly state that the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees have the liable, however the franchisor is not the any character of them. The plaintiff thought the defendant is the operator, but the hotel franchisor’s influence the franchisee’s day-to-day operation, it is not operator under the ADA. And the purpose of franchisor is the train the manager and employees of franchised hotels, improve the quality of the day-to-day running, and customer experience in hotel.
Also the words “design and construct” may cause the dispute, this may refer the material suppliers or someone else.
So overall, the plaintiff failed the lawsuit.
Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2010) In July 26, 2010, a paraplegic named Maurizio Antoninetti who used wheelchair brought action in the US District of California Court against the Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., which operated the famous Mexican fast-food restaurants. In this case, the point is whether the Chipotle’s restaurant unable accommodates customers with disabilities the requirements of the ADA. The ADA aim to protect the people who with disabilities avoid the discrimination during the daily life. The plaintiff Antoninetti shows his argues under this legal regulation. The restaurant has a wall with 45 inches high which separating the customers' service road and food preparation counter. Antoninetti considered the wall in the restaurant is against the ADA rules that ensure “lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public,” because he in wheelchair cannot see the food preparation counter. But this rule did not suitable for the wall between customer walking road and food preparation counter. The court in favor of Chipotle’s restaurant, this ADA rules does not apply to their food preparation counter. A maximum height of 36 inches is required a portion of the main counter by the ADA rules. The Chipotle’s restaurant the food preparation counter connect the transaction station, is only 34 inches above the floor. So Chipotle considered it is satisfied the requirement. The court dismissed this argument. Because there is a wall with 45 inches high which in front of food preparation counter. The wall prevents the wheelchair's customers to viewing food preparation. Also there are different functions between the food preparation counter and transaction station. Food preparation counter was used to customers view, select their food, and the transaction station was used for customers’ checkout. At last the court gives us a conclusion that Chipotle's restaurant did not violate the ADA rules and that Antoninetti was not entitled to reversing the verdict.
Sharp v. Islands Rest.-Carlsbad, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (S.D.
legislation and case law QUESTIONS 1. The case study references one state statute. Identify it and explain what it prohibits. The state statute is the Tex. Penal Code 42.09(a)(3) It prohibits the “desecration of a venerable object” (Case Study) 2. Which branch of government (executive, judicial, or legislative) created the state statute? The Legislative branch of the government created the state statute. 3. The passage above also discusses one court case. Who were the parties involved in the case? The parties…
Mark v Citic (NEGLIGENCE PHYSICAL HARM) Issue : Can Mark’s wife sue Citic for negligence? Rules & Application : Modern law of negligence was leaded by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson where The House of Lords provided 3 elements of a negligence action: duty, breach, damage. 1. Did Citic owe Mark a duty of care? Reasonable Foreseeable Test Citic employed Mark as its employee and it is reasonably forseeable that Citic ensure a safe work evironment. If Citic did not tell Mark about the tobron that could…
incorrectly, Mr Maclean will have an economic loss. It was also just and reasonable to impose the liability because Mr Maclean highly relied on Miss Cambridge’s technical skills. Lord Griffiths expressed the premises of a duty of care as follows in the case of Smith v Eric Bush: “only if it is foreseeable that if the advice is negligent the recipient is likely to suffer damage, that there is a sufficient proximate relationship between the parties and that it is just and reasonable to impose the liability”…
The judge read the charges Mr. Chou was being accused of which included break and enter with intent, mischief under $50, and fail to comply with probation. The judge then explained to him his rights and options to a trial where the onus would be on the crown to prove guilt, and asked him if he was sure that he wanted to plea guilty. The crown then proceeded to read the facts of the day of the offence while disclosing that the accused was a heroin addict. The offence took place on Feb 18th the accused…
ended 30 June 2013. ISSUE: The main issue to consider with this case is whether the loss of licence insurance payment $250,000, long service leave payment $30,000 and the loss of income insurance payments $60,000 are assessable income? LAWS: S 6 -‐ 1(1) ITAA 1997 Assessable Income = Ordinary income + Statutory…
Case Study Samuel J. Edwards BHR 3565, Employment Law Student ID: 199396 In the case of Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos 483 U.S. 327 (1987), an employee was terminated from his job as a janitor in a church-owned gym and brought suit for religious discrimination under Title VII. The U.S. Supreme Court held that applying the religious exemption to Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination in employment to secular nonprofit…
Contract Law Cases (Making an Offer) Partridge v Crittenden The defendant advertised birds for sale. He was charged with unlawfully offering birds for sale which contradicts with the Protection of BIrds Act 1954. The defendant was not guilty as in his advert he didn’t make an offer but an invitation to treat. Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball company The defendant was offering a smoke ball which he claimed that it treated many illnesses including the flu. In his advert the defendant claimed…
giving her a glass of poison. However, before she could take it she died from heart failure. He was charged with attempted murder not murder. ‘but-for’ test applied. Pagett – it is for the judge to direct the jury with the relevant principles of law as to whether a causal link has been established for causation. Legal Causation Jordan - medical treatment not novus actus inteveniens unless it is palpably wrong Smith – medical treatment given was palpably wrong. Guilty Cheshire – negligent treatment…
Chapter 2 Working With The Tax Law Individual Income Taxes 1 2 Statutory Sources of Tax Law (slide 1 of 2) • Internal Revenue Code – Codification of the Federal tax law provisions in a logical sequence – Have had three codes: • 1939, 1954, 1986 3 Statutory Sources of Tax Law (slide 2 of 2) • Example of Code Citation: § 32(f)(5)(B)(ii)(I) § = Abbreviation for “Section” – – – – – – 32 = section number (f) = subsection (5) = paragraph designation (B) = subparagraph designation (ii) = Clause…