Sample Essay on Praesal v. Johnson

Praesal v. Johnson

  • This case occurred between Johnson and Praesal that took place in 1998. In this case, Johnson, an epileptic patient was driving and suddenly he got his epileptic attacks while driving which made him to cause a road accident. The tragedy involved Ronald Peterson, an epileptic person who suffered a major mal seizure while driving and broadsided a vehicle driven by Terri Lynn Praesel. Terri sustained major injuries, which later lead to her death. In this case, the law dictates that in any offence there are three types of issue that the law must consider.
  • The law considers that under common law, the cause of action for negligence contains three elements, namely a legal of duty, a breach of the same duty and damages that directly results from the breach of duty.
  • The main question in the case between Praesal and Johnson is whether there was an existence duty. This means that the jury had to decide whether the offender had any part to play in the occurrence of the accident. The jury must find out whether Johnson played a significant role in causing the accident. They have to use common law to find out whether the defense maliciously cause the accident that lead to the death of the plaintiff. In this case, the appellant states that he has been undergoing treatment concerning an epileptic disorder. This is a condition that the patient has no control over and is cannot detect when it is about to occur. Another important factor the jurors must consider is whether the physician who was treating Johnson can be charged for neglecting his duties.
  • According to medical law, physicians and doctors are responsible for advising their patients on the procedures to follow based on the nature of their disease. In this case, the physicians handling the epileptic case should have been able to advise Johnson not to drive based on his condition. They should have made it clear to him that his disease can occur anytime hence it is not proper that he .drive a car as this could easily lead to an accident.
  • The court in this case relied on medical legislative history. Using this approach, the judges had to decide whether the doctor treating the patient could be held responsible for the offence committed by Johnson. In their view, the jurors decide that the law does not require medical practitioners to make public the medical histories of patients.
  • In the same way, they are not obligated to report similar issues to the Department of Public Safety or the Medical Advisory Board. They do not carry the obligations to give information such as the date of birth, name, and address of a sick person whom the medical practitioner has diagnosed as having a condition specified in a rule of the Department, which would include patients with epilepsy. Therefore, according to this case, the client would have been more alert to know the extent to which he should go based on his epileptic medical history.

Graff v. Beard

  • The Graff v Beard case law suit that took place between a guest, a motorcyclist who was Beard, the Graff.
  • The facts of the case are that the Graff held a party, one guest left the party while he was very intoxicated.
  • While driving under the influence, the driver collided with a motorcyclist Bear, which cause some injuries to him
  • The cyclist Beard decide to file a lawsuit against both the guest and the host. According to the plaintiff Beard, the party host should have advised his guest not to drive under the influence of any drug or alcohol. The applicant also believes that the party host reserves the right of ensuring that his guest do not cause harm to anybody on their way home.
  • The main issue in the case is for the jury to determine whether the party owner held any direct or indirect duties that lead to the occurrence of the accident between the guest and the motorcyclist.
  • In this case, the judges decide to preside over the case by arguing the issue based on the history of the knowledge of drunk driving and using public policy in regards to coming up with new common laws and their applications to various cases. They also looked at the case based on social economic and political questions. They also needed to find out the extent of the damages caused by the offender and their impact on the lives of the plaintiff. Similarly, the judges had to determine whether there was a duty to the driver, in a case where someone other than the driver has created a risk.
  • In their findings, the judges ruled that it was impossible for the party host to know the extent to which the driver was drunk. On the same note, all drivers know that the law does not permit them to drink under the influence of any substance, be it alcohol or any other drugs. The court therefore found in unethical for the applicant to sue the party host on the grounds that the accident occurred after the driver left his or her premises.

The role executive agencies play in regulating business and industry

  • The executive industries are in charge of formulating the rules and regulations to be followed by businesses that operate within a given type of industry. For example, the environmental agencies are in charge of coming up with laws that support manufacturing, supplies and application of goods and services based on demand and supply. They regulate the number of local and international market operating within any firm. They ensure that any business that affect the well being of human beings and animals do so ethically.
  • The executive comes up with various barriers to trade which are effective for local business agencies because such barriers reduce competitions from local and international nations.
  • On the other hand, the agencies may hinder the operations of businesses by imposing harder rules on them. The rules may only favor a selected few but not everyone.
  • The executive branch may also hinder the operations of the agencies by awarding certificate of trade to countries that come from local areas. This will ensure that the prices of commodities goes high and may not be easily as
  • The executive may hinder business operations conducted in the agencies by dictating the type and amount f goods and services that one deals with. They may make it impossible for villagers to take part in the daily business activities that do not help much. They may also grant permits to a given portion of the population making it hard for other to receive the same opportunities.