Mission College Envirotest Systems Inc and Pennsylvania Legislators Paper

Question Description

Pennsylvania contracted with Envirotest Systems, Inc., an Arizona company, to build 86 automobile emissions inspection stations in 25 counties and operate them for seven years. This contract is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Envirotest. But Pennsylvania legislators suddenly opposed the entire system, claiming that it would lead to long delays and high expenses for motorists. These lawmakers urged that Pennsylvania simply stop construction of the new system. Was Pennsylvania allowed to get out of the contract because its legislators concluded the whole system is unwise?FILLER TEXT



Unformatted Attachment Preview

Sample legal essay: Facts: At approximately 7:50 pm, bells at the train station rang and red lights flashed, signaling an express train’s approach. David Harris walked onto the tracks, ignoring a yellow line painted on the platform instructing people to stand back. Two men shouted to Harris, warning him to get off the tracks. The train’s engineer saw him too late to stop the train, which was traveling at approximately 55 mph. The train struck and killed Harris as it passed through the station. Harris’s widow sued the railroad, arguing that the railroad’s negligence caused her husband’s death. Issue: Did the railroad show signs of negligence in this case? Or did Harris’s negligence lead to his own death? Should the railroad be held accountable for the death of David Harris? Will Harris’s widow win her lawsuit? Decision: No, the railroad did not show signs of negligence since there were multiple conditions set in place to help avoid deaths from occurring. Yes, David Harris’s acted in a negligent way that ultimately led to his death. No, the railroad should not be held accountable for the death of Harris because they set a great number of precautions in place to limit the possibility of someone dying. No, Harris’s widow will not win her lawsuit. Reasoning: In order for a plaintiff to win a negligence case the plaintiff has to prove that all five elements: Duty of Due Care, Breach, Factual Cause, Proximate Cause, and Damages, are present. If one of the elements is not proved there is no liability. The plaintiff must prove Duty of Due Care which is when the defendant had a legal responsibility to the plaintiff. In this case, being that it was a train station the railroad had a duty of due care with the highest liability because people there are considered invitees. An invitee is a person who has a right to enter another’s property because it is a public place or a business open to the public. For the plaintiff to continue her negligence case she had to prove the next element otherwise she would lose the case entirely. Breach is when the defendant has breached their duty of care or failed to meet their legal obligations. In this case, the railroad did not breach its duty of care because there were flashing red lights and bells ringing that served as a warning to anyone who was at the train station that something was about to happen, in this specific case the train was approaching. Also, in case people at the station ignored the bells and flashing lights there was a yellow line painted on the platform that warned people to stay back so they would not get hit by the train. Since the railroad did not breach its duty of care the plaintiff will not be able to win the negligence case because she can’t prove all five elements needed to win the case. By definition, negligence is a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. Harris did not behave with the same level of care that someone would normally would have when at a train station because he not only ignored the safety precautions set at the train station which were the red flashing lights, bells, and the yellow painted line on the platform, but also the two men at the station that shouted at him to get off the tracks. Also, Harris took the assumption of risk by walking onto the train tracks. Assumption of Risk is when a person voluntarily enters a situation that has an obvious danger and cannot complain if injured. It is known that crossing train tracks can be dangerous if one does not take some level of precaution. By crossing the tracks when all signs of an approaching train were present Harris took the assumption of risk and suffered fatal consequences. Thus, his wife cannot hold the railroad responsible for what happened to him. This then leads one to the conclusion that Harris is responsible for his own death because of his negligence. The railroad should not be held accountable for the death of David Harris because Harris ignored all the safety precautions that were set by the railroad to avoid people from getting hurt. Also, as previously stated it was Harris’s negligence that caused his death, so he is the only one that should be responsible. Harris’s widow will not win the lawsuit because she cannot prove all five of the elements needed to win a negligence case. Her argument for the lawsuit was most likely done out of emotional distress seeing that she lost her husband. Reference: Textbook Pg. 146-149, 153 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence Sample devil’s advocate Conley should be charged with racketeering as defined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act of October 1970. Conley purchased the original poker machines, which could be constituted as a crime in Pennsylvania, followed by the repeat offense of purchasing more machines with his profits. According to the US Department of Justice, “the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that an enterprise existed; (2) that the enterprise affected interstate commerce; (3) that the defendant was associated with or employed by the enterprise; (4) that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity; and (5) that the defendant conducted or participated in the conduct of the enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity through the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity as set forth in the indictment. ” As it is obvious that he was (1) conducting the unlawful business, (3) that he was associated with the bars and clubs conducting the unlawful business, (4) that he seems to intend to continue committing the crime, or “pose a threat of continued criminal activity”, and (5) has committed the crime at least twice. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-109-ricocharges …

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount