This case discusses whether a gym member can waive liability for negligence in a membership agreement. The court found that the agreement clearly waived liability for ordinary negligence. However, it did not rise to the level of gross negligence, which cannot be waived, as the gym took reasonable safety measures. Additionally, the gym was not a distributor or seller of equipment but rather a provider of fitness services. Therefore, the court upheld the waiver of liability and granted summary judgment for the gym.
Proyecto de trabajo realizado por los alumnos de Primer Ciclo del cpeip Hilarión Eslava para conmemorar el 200 aniversario de la publicación de los cuentos de lo hermanos Grimm.
Un ejemplo de planeación argumentada siguiendo los elementos que sugiere el Servicio Profesional Docente en México. Se trabajó en taller implementado por la Sección 16 del SNTE
Planeación D. Argumentada-Contenidos PreescolarLucy Galán
Para que el docente de Educación Preescolar realice su Planeación didáctica argumentada deberá elegir el Campo formativo de Lenguaje y comunicación o el de pensamiento matemático. Posteriormente seleccionará una competencia para realizar y argumentar su Planeación didáctica según el Campo formativo que haya determinado. De las siguientes competencias podrá considerar uno o más de los aprendizajes esperados correspondientes a esta tabla.
Identifying & Managing Risk In Supply Chain AgreementsQuarles & Brady
This program covered three of the most heavily negotiated provisions in supply chain agreements - warranty, indemnification, and limitation of liability. These provisions are the primary provisions used to allocate risks between the contracting parties. We briefly discussed the purpose of each provision, identified the risks that negotiators should be aware of, and discussed strategies for understanding and managing the risks.
Commercial Disputes – Have you got them covered?watsonburton
Commercial Disputes – Have you got them covered?
Slides from Lockton & Watson Burton
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Richard Palmer & Bal Manak - Watson Burton LLP
Michael Farrell & Anthony Place - Lockton Companies LLP
Proyecto de trabajo realizado por los alumnos de Primer Ciclo del cpeip Hilarión Eslava para conmemorar el 200 aniversario de la publicación de los cuentos de lo hermanos Grimm.
Un ejemplo de planeación argumentada siguiendo los elementos que sugiere el Servicio Profesional Docente en México. Se trabajó en taller implementado por la Sección 16 del SNTE
Planeación D. Argumentada-Contenidos PreescolarLucy Galán
Para que el docente de Educación Preescolar realice su Planeación didáctica argumentada deberá elegir el Campo formativo de Lenguaje y comunicación o el de pensamiento matemático. Posteriormente seleccionará una competencia para realizar y argumentar su Planeación didáctica según el Campo formativo que haya determinado. De las siguientes competencias podrá considerar uno o más de los aprendizajes esperados correspondientes a esta tabla.
Identifying & Managing Risk In Supply Chain AgreementsQuarles & Brady
This program covered three of the most heavily negotiated provisions in supply chain agreements - warranty, indemnification, and limitation of liability. These provisions are the primary provisions used to allocate risks between the contracting parties. We briefly discussed the purpose of each provision, identified the risks that negotiators should be aware of, and discussed strategies for understanding and managing the risks.
Commercial Disputes – Have you got them covered?watsonburton
Commercial Disputes – Have you got them covered?
Slides from Lockton & Watson Burton
Tuesday 2 July 2013
Richard Palmer & Bal Manak - Watson Burton LLP
Michael Farrell & Anthony Place - Lockton Companies LLP
Brush up on your Florida Construction Defect Law to better serve your clients. Presentation by Thomas Oglesby, Esq. from Resnick & Louis, P.C. Attorneys at Law
Sample Independent Contractor AgreementThis Agreement is mad.docxrtodd599
Sample Independent Contractor Agreement
This Agreement is made between ____________________ ("Client") with a principal place of business at __________________ and _______________ ("Contractor"), with a principal place of business at ____________________________.
1. Services to Be Performed
Contractor agrees to perform the following services: _____________
OR
Contractor agrees to perform the services described in Exhibit A, which is attached to this Agreement.
2. Payment
In consideration for the services to be performed by Contractor, Client agrees to pay Contractor at the following rates: ____________________________.
Contractor shall be paid within a reasonable time after Contractor submits an invoice to Client. The invoice should include the following: an invoice number, the dates covered by the invoice, and a summary of the work performed.
3. Expenses
Contractor shall be responsible for all expenses incurred while performing services under this Agreement. This includes automobile, truck, and other travel expenses; vehicle maintenance and repair costs; vehicle and other license fees and permits; insurance premiums; road, fuel, and other taxes; fines; radio, pager, or cell phone expenses; meals; and all salary, expenses, and other compensation paid to employees or contract personnel the Contractor hires to complete the work under this Agreement.
OR
Client shall reimburse Contractor for the following expenses that are attributable directly to work performed under this Agreement: _________________.
Contractor shall submit an itemized statement of Contractor's expenses. Client shall pay Contractor within 30 days after receipt of each statement.
4. Vehicles and Equipment
Contractor will furnish all vehicles, equipment, tools, and materials used to provide the services required by this Agreement. Client will not require Contractor to rent or purchase any equipment, product, or service as a condition of entering into this Agreement.
5. Independent Contractor Status
Contractor is an independent contractor, and neither Contractor nor Contractor's employees or contract personnel are, or shall be deemed, Client's employees. In its capacity as an independent contractor, Contractor agrees and represents, and Client agrees, as follows
[Check all that apply]
[ ] Contractor has the right to perform services for others during the term of this Agreement.
[ ] Contractor has the sole right to control and direct the means, manner, and method by which the services required by this Agreement will be performed. Contractor shall select the routes taken, starting and quitting times, days of work, and order the work is performed.
[ ] Contractor has the right to hire assistants as subcontractors or to use employees to provide the services required by this Agreement.
[ ] Neither Contractor nor Contractor's employees or contract personnel shall be required to wear any uniforms provided by Client.
[ ] The services required by this Agreement shall be perfor.
CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT FORMAT
FREE LEGAL AND ACCOUNTANT FORMATS
KANOON KE RAKHWALE INDIA
HIRE LAWYER ONLINE
LAW FIRMS IN DELHI
CA FIRM DELHI
VISIT : https://www.kanoonkerakhwale.com/
VISIT : https://hirelawyeronline.com/
Consumer Protection Act 1986 by Adv. Urwi KecheUrwi Keche
Consumer Protection Act 1986
Reasons for Enacting the Act
Consumer Rights
who is consumer
User of Goods with the approval of Buyer
Beneficiary of Services is also a Consumer
Person buying goods for self-employment is Consumer
Livelihood
who is manufacturer
what is service
who is complainant
what is complaint
Consumer Dispute
Defect
Deficiency
Consumer Courts in India
Essential Remedies Available to Consumers under Indian Consumer Protections Act 1986
This presentation will explore how project risk can be shared with the insurance market and what special insurance clauses are needed for large construction projects. It will cover the following topics:
(1) The benefits and challenges of risk transfer in project management
(2) The types and features of insurance products available for project risk mitigation
(3) The best practices and examples of special insurance clauses for large construction projects
The presentation aims to provide a practical guide for project managers, contractors, consultants, and insurers who are involved in or interested in large construction projects. It will also offer insights into case studies.
This presentation gives the user a detailed research analysis on the settlement of unpaid claims in Insurance sector.This ppt is made after the analysis of recent articles and news on unpaid claims and its settlement process for insurance policy holders
This presentation gives the user a detailed research analysis on the settlement of unpaid claims in Insurance sector.This ppt is made after the analysis of recent articles and news on unpaid claims and its settlement process for insurance policy holders
Week 1 ContentSaylor Advanced Business Law and the Legal .docxcelenarouzie
Week 1 Content
Saylor: Advanced Business Law and the Legal Environment
· Introduction to Law and the Legal System
· Courts and the Legal Process
· Constitutional Law and Commerce
Saylor: The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business
· The Rule of Law
· Importance of Rule of Law to Business
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
The U.S. Constitution
State Court Listings by Jurisdiction
Week 2 Content
Saylor: Advanced Business Law and the Legal Environment
· Tort Law
Civil and Criminal Law Comparison
Elements of Negligence Summary
Premises liability
Introduction to Torts (video - 15 mins)
Week 3 Content
Review assigned materials in Week 2
Products Liability
Case Examples: Liriano v. Hobart Corp.; Daniell v Ford Motor Company; Klein v Pyrodyne Corp. (Links located below.)
Case Examples
Warranties and Products Liability
Liriano v. Hobart Corp. 92 N.Y.2d 232 (1998) Court of Appeals of the State of New York (failure to adequately warn, defective and negligent design)
Facts:
In 1961, Liriano, a 17 year-old employee in the meat department at Super Associated grocery store (Super), was injured on the job while feeding meat into a commercial meat grinder whose safety guard had been removed. His right hand and lower forearm were amputated.
The meat grinder was manufactured and sold by Hobart Corporation (Hobart) with an affixed safety guard that prevented the user's hands from coming into contact with the grinder. No warnings were on the machine or otherwise provided to state it was dangerous to operate the machine without the safety guard in place. Subsequently, Hobart became aware that a significant number of purchasers of its meat grinders had removed the safety guards; in 1962, Hobart began issuing warnings on its meat grinders concerning removal of the safety guard.
At trial, Super conceded the safety guard was intact at the time it acquired the grinder and that the guard was removed while in its possession. It is further conceded that Hobart actually knew, before the accident, that removals of this sort were occurring and that use of the machine without the safety guard was highly dangerous.
Liriano sued Hobart for negligence and strict product liability for defective product design and failure to warn. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Super was impleaded as a third-party defendant, seeking indemnification and/or contribution.
The District Court dismissed all of Liriano's claims except those based on failure to warn. The trial court ruled failure to warn was the proximate cause of Liriano's injuries and apportioned liability 5% to Hobart and 95% to Super. On partial retrial, Liriano was assigned 33 1/3% of the responsibility.
Hobart and Super appealed, arguing that they had no duty to warn, as a matter of law, and that the case should have been decided in their favor.
Opinion:
The appellate court agreed, essentially, with the rationale of the lower courts on the .
The SAFE TO WORK Act (S. 4317) was first introduced as standalone legislation on July 20. The text of this proposed COVID-19 liability shield is included within the “skinny” coronavirus relief bill that recently failed a key vote in the Senate.
As detailed in the attached, the SAFE TO WORK Act would afford U.S. businesses, nonprofits and local governments protections against liability for COVID-19 infections markedly stronger than those available under the immunity statutes enacted by the States.
Under the proposed federal law, a plaintiff infected with COVID-19 would be required to prove through “clear and convincing” evidence:
• The defendant failed to make reasonable efforts to comply with applicable government standards or guidance to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19;
• The defendant acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct; and
• That gross negligence or willful misconduct caused the plaintiff to contract COVID-19.
Learn The Difference Between Winning a Contract or Walking Away Empty-Handed!
There are two types of government contractors: those that have been a party to a bid protest and those that will soon find themselves involved in a protest.
As federal budgets continue to shrink, the competition between contractors' increases and the number of bid protests will rise.
1. 1. Facts and Legal issues discussed
• This case is about negligence and wavier of liability.
• There is mention of gross negligence but only fleetingly because the facts in the case do
not give rise to gross negligence.
• Product liability and whether a defendant/respondent was liable for the injury as a
distributor of the product being used during injury is discussed as well.
The key facts in this case include:
• a membership agreement between Grebing(appellant) and 24 Hour Fitness( Respondent}
in which Grebing agrees to voluntarily accept any and all risk of injury cause by 24 Hour
Fitness or its employees, volunteers agents and the like.
• Grebing agrees to hold 24 Hour Fitness harmless against any liability and to indemnify
them for any cost incurred in connection with a claim for bodily injury, wrongful death,
court fees etc.
• Grebing affirms respondent is a supplier of "recreational services" and not product
distributor.
• After Grebing becomes a member he is seriously injured while using a piece of
equipment at the respondent's facility.
• Although there is evidence that the machine may not have been inspected that day or that
a commonly removed link used on various machines at respondent's facility was out of
place on the day of the injury, Grebing admitted he had read the warning label on the
machine before he was injured: “PRIOR TO USE, BE SURE THAT THE ‘SAFETY
CLIP’ IS IN PROPER WORKING CONDITION AND SHOWS NO SIGNS OF
WEAR!”
2. How the court decided the case including decision and reasoning
Court's Decision
• Grebing assumed all responsibility for the risks arising from his use of 24 Hour’s
facilities, services, equipment, or premises.
• "The release in the two agreements signed by Grebing precludes liability for ordinary
negligence and breach of warranty. Because we find no disputed issues of material fact
over whether 24 Hour acted with gross negligence or provided fitness services to
Grebing, the trial court properly granted 24 Hour’s motion for summary judgment. The
judgment is affirmed. "
2. Court's Reasoning
• As a general principal parties may contract to almost anything, including a waiver of
liability for negligence unless it is prohibited by statute or impairs the public interest.
• The contract described by the facts in this case are clear and unambiguous. "[plaintiff]
voluntarily accept[s] the risk and agree that 24 Hour, its officers, directors, employees,
volunteers, agents and independent contractors will not be liable for any injury..."
• There is no evidence that this releases impairs the public interest. In fact, in this day
and age when obesity is rampant in the United States, to allow gyms to enter such a
release and provide physical fitness facilities without the fear of incessant claims is
largely(no pun intended) in the public interest.
Appellant contends that there is a factual issues as to whether respondent was grossly
negligent.
• Gross negligence differs from ordinary negligence in that it may not be waived in light of
public interest. Gross negligence may be found where an activity is so inherently
dangerous or reasonable care is consciously and voluntarily disregarded and the result is
foreseeable grave injury to a person or property.
• This case does not rise to the level of gross negligence. Respondent employs a facility
technician whose job was to conduct a daily inspection of the facility and perform
preventative maintenance. If the facilities technician was unavailable, 24 Hour had a
practice of requiring other staff members to conduct the inspection and perform any
required maintenance. In view of these measures, 24 Hour’s conduct cannot reasonably
be regarded as demonstrating an consciously and voluntary departure from the ordinary
standard of conduct. Respondent takes steps to increase safety and prevent injury.
• Product liability as a distributor does not apply here because the contract explicitly
describes that respondent is a provider of fitness services and is not selling fitness
equipment. "... You understand and acknowledge that 24 Hour is providing recreational
services and may not be held liable for defective products.” Moreover, Appellant may
have had a difficult time proving liability even if respondent was a distributor because
this product is not one where the distributor manipulates the machines(removes them
from the original packaging and assembles and then delivers.) Therefore defects would
be more likely to be manufactures' and not distributors.
3. I learned from this case and would like to share that:
Parties may contract to almost anything including wavier of ordinary negligence and right
to recover. The difference between ordinary and gross negligence appears to surround the
degree of disregard and or the degree of risk included in the activity. Distributor and
manufactures' liability and "merchantability of a product are important concepts relative to
contract law.