The suit should be filed in Nevada because this is where the accident occurred. Bob has a right to bring suit against Mary because he caused bodily harm to both he and his family through negligence. Based on the details of the case study, Mary appeared to be having difficulty driving her car and thus she was liable for all the injuries caused due to the accident. Mary will not have control over where the suit can be filed because she is the defendant in the case.
Maybe Ann’s testimony should not be heard because her credibility as a witness is in doubt. If she were genuine, she would have been a witness immediately the case began. The case has been in the media so there is every possibility that Maybe Ann has learnt details pertaining to the case through the media and wishes to dupe the court into believing that she is a credible witness and that she was at the scene of the accident.
Rule and Application
Mary can also file a suit against Bob claiming compensation for the brain injuries she sustained. She can file the suit under Nevada’s modified comparative fault rule where a jury can declare that Bob too was also to blame for the accident. The modified comparative fault rule states that an accident victim’s compensation is reduced if his actions also contributed to the action (Boyd, 2006). For Mary to sustain serious injuries that have caused her to go blind, it shows that Bob too was in part to blame for the accident and she should claim compensation for the same or at least Bob’s compensation should be reduced.
If the trial was by a judge then perhaps new evidence could be heard. The new evidence presented could lead the judge to overturning a previous ruling and requiring that a new trial take place with a new jury. Every individual has a right to a trial with a panel of his or her peers. Therefore, Mary has a right to a trial by jury.
Appellate courts are meant to hear and review appeals from cases that have already been heard in trial and other courts. The appellate courts derive their power from the constitution of the land that allows certain special courts to review judgments by lower courts. According to Lobsenz (1985), every citizen has a constitutional right to an appeal.
In my capacity as the attorney for the County School Board and the State Highway Administration, I deem it ill-advised to conduct unannounced searches in middle and high schools. The Supreme Court argues that teachers and administrators’ need to maintain order in a school is greater than a child’s privacy and his Fourth Amendment right to be secure from an unreasonable search. However, there needs to be reasonable grounds for suspecting that a search will bring forth evidence of a plan to commit violence in the school. Otherwise, without reasonable grounds, arbitrary searches in students’ private belongings are illegal (Ehlenberger, 2002).
In addition, metal detectors can only be used in schools to check students and teachers if the particular school cites a special need. For instance, the schools in the County Board need to state clearly that they have a special need of controlling entry of weapons into the school and eliminating any form of violence that could be caused by a weapon. Without acknowledging a special need then the school’s use of metal detectors on the students could be considered an infringement on their Fourth Amendment rights (Ehlenberger, 2002).
On the matter of referring at-risk students to counseling, the schools will be within their rights to do so in order to limit their liability just in case one of the students goes on a violent rampage. When it comes to making students study famous moral leaders including some religious leaders such as Moses, Jesus, and Buddha, the law might misconstrue this as an infringement on the right to worship and religious freedom. Therefore, the schools will be well advised from teaching morality classes on these religious leaders.
Boyd, W.S. (2006). Nevada Law Journal 7:430-431.
Ehlenberger, K.R. (2002). The Right to Search Students. Understanding the Law 59 (4): 31-35.
Lobsenz, J. (1985). A Constitutional right to an appeal: Guarding against unacceptable risks of erroneous conviction. University of Puget Sound Law Review, 8 (375): 375-410.