1.Nathan and Sam
Nathanwill to help Sam and alleviate his suffering by taking him to thehospital is commendable. However, that does not permit him to benegligent in his driving. His negligence has caused more injuries toSam, which implies more harm and hence more medical costs. Accordingto the law, Nathan is liable to Sam and Sam should file forcompensation. Nathan should be prepared to pay for his negligence.The compensation would be for the injuries caused and also to caterfor the medical costs incurred as a result. The district attorney mayalso be compelled to file a criminal case against Nathan for beingnegligent and for engaging in dangerous driving. Sam has a strongcase and is clearly destined for compensation for damages andinjuries.
2.A statute requires all vessels traveling on the Great Lakes toprovide lifeboats.
Itis clear what the statute provides for. That is an important point ofclarification as it does not provide other conditions in whichlifeboats should be provided. The provision of the lifeboats is notdependent on the magnitude of the storm. The statute clearly statesthat all vessels travelling on the great lakes should provide alifeboat. Therefore Winston is liable to Perry and his family shouldsue for compensation. Death has been caused through negligence sinceno one knows what the magnitude of the storm would be at any giventime. That is the law of nature and it could as well be said thatmaybe the storm would not have been that strong had there been alifeboat. A ruling in favor of Perry would affirm to other vesselcompanies that the statute should be adhered to at all times. Itwould also clarify that the statute is not a function of weather orother natural conditions. It should be adhered to at all times.
3.Escola and Coca-Cola
InTort, the fact that there is harm caused does not imply negligence.However, coca cola is responsible for their bottles under allcircumstances. The company should ensure that stringent measures areput in place to ensure all their manufactured drinks in bottles aremanufactured and distributed safely. They should conduct duediligence to ensure that no bottle has defects that could lead tophysical injury. Therefore, Escola could recover from this theory.Coca-Cola is responsible for all its products and should, therefore,admit liability for not conducting due diligence before distributionits products. Escola has a strong case since Coca-Cola is the onlycompany responsible for manufacturing, packaging and distribution ofthe products. Someone has to be responsible for the harm caused andthat can only be the company itself. Although the company hadsubjected the bottle to all the stringent requirements and tests, itdoesn`t negate the obligation. This is based on the fact that therecould be more other factors that could cause an explosion of abottle. This implies that the company may not have carried out theirresearch well to determine compliance of their entire bottles. It isthe responsibility of the company to carry out such comprehensiveresearch to guarantee the safety of their bottles. They are thereforeliable and Escola should seek for compensation for injuries caused.She could clearly recover from the theory.