Q1: Ralph W. Moores, Jr., was injured on the job while working as a dock worker in Maine. After collecting workers' compensation benefits in the amount of $43,000, Moores brought a third party liability suit against the shipowners. Nathan Greenberg was Moores's attorney. The shipowners informed Greenberg that they would settle the suit, at one point offering $90,000. Greenberg did not inform Moores of the offer because he did not deem it to be sufficiently significant. When Moores lost the case in court, he sued Greenberg, alleging that Greenberg had a duty to inform him of these offers and had breached that duty by not doing so. How should the court rule? Discuss fully.
Q2: See the link: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-warming-finally-reaches-the-last-arctic-region
Discuss Global Warming.Take a position and defend it,© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 7:02 am ad1c9bdddf
1 -- Let's look at the facts.
Ralph was injured on the job while working on a dock. He collected worker's compensation benefits in the amount of $43,000. He then sued the dock owner. Ralph hired Greenberg as his attorney. The dock owners informed the attorney that the suit could be settled for $90,000. The attorney did not inform his client about the settlement and decided (by himself) that the amount was not suitable. Ralph lost the court case and then sued his attorney, claiming that the attorney had a duty to inform him of the settlement offer. How should the court rule?
The court should rule in favour of Ralph. The main question that the court is going to address is the ...
This solution discusses each of the legal elements involved in the worker's compensation case involving Ralph Moores and the shipyard. This solution also advises the student on the case of global warming, which includes choosing a side to the issue.