I think it's both the railroad inspector and the driver who drives the car. The railroad inspector didn't come fix the problem and the driver didn't take his car to the shop to get his problem fixed. So honestly, it's both their faults.
Answer:
Although defined within the context of a media defendant, the rule requiring proof of actual malice applies to all defendants including individuals. The standard can make it very difficult to prevail in a defamation case, even when allegations made against a public figure are unfair or are proved to be false.
Explanation:
Answer: The physician is being sued. Insurance company should provide an attorney. If the doctor is negligent, insurance company should pay (that's why we have premiums). Dr. Z is sued, goes to agency, and notifies the agency. The agency doesn't notify Aetna in right amount of time, and also notifies the wrong company. Aetna doesn't have a liability because they were not notified in a timely manner. Larson is agent to Aetna. A principal's notice to agent=notice to principal. That's the same as notifying Aetna according to its claims procedure. This is not Dr.Z's problem. Aetna is wrong in denying coverage, and Dr.Z will succeed and not have to pay.
Answer:
Explanation:
The reason why there is 4 to 5 police cars when someone runs is because they don't know if the guy/girl is armed. And also he could get away so they have 2 police cars cut him off so they can catch him.
