However, Congressional legislation must provide standards for regulatory agencies (due process of law) and, according to the information provided, that didn’t happen. The delegation of power to EPA seemed to be broad, giving the agency the power to make the law. The Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States concerned the same excess of authority by the agency (the president in that case) and the lack of standards. “The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested”, there are limits on delegation. The Hazardous Materials Disposal Act, passed by the US Congress, directed EPA to perform the analysis, but everything else was done by EPA in conjunction with some major universities. John Smith could argue that the rule adopted by EPA exceeded their authority and denied him “due process of law”, claiming that not all legal proceedings were fair.
2) The elements of the Law of Personal Injury are:
• Duty of care - people must take a reasonable try at making sure nobody gets hurt from their actions.
• Violation of that duty - if you do something that hurts someone, you will breach the duty of care.
• Resulting injury - it has to be proven that negligence happened.
• Forseeable – the person must establish in that he or she suffered actual harm as a result of the defendant’s action or inaction.
The concept of “foreseeability” is the basis of proximate cause. The responsibility of a person for the consequences of his or her wrongful action is limited by principles of reasonable foreseeability, preventing him or her from being held liable for consequences that fall outside the scope of their actions. In Palgraf v. The Long Island Raildroad Company, Helen Palsgraf sued the railroad for negligence when she got hit by a platform that fell on her head at the train station. However, since the cause of the platform to fall was actually an explosion caused by fireworks that were hidden in a man’s package, the court found that the railroad was not the proximate cause of Palsgraf’s injuries. Mr . Smith was a victim of Professional Malpractice. Doctors owe a duty of ordinary care in providing their services, known as “reasonable professional standard”. A professional who breaches this duty of care is liable for the injury his or hers negligence causes. Dr. Jones wrongfully completed the procedure even though he was unsure that all the broken parts of the blade were removed, which caused Mr. Smith’s medical complications.
Under the Employment Law, one of the agency rules is the “respondiat superior”, in which the manager/employer is always responsible for acts of individuals of your business. In this case, since the hospital is liable for the negligence of doctor, it is also responsible for Mr. Smith’s injuries. Mr. Smith can also sue the Manufacture of the blade that broke off in his spinal cord, even though he was not the purchaser of the product. Product