Answer:
true
Explanation:
Read the attached opinion in Burnatoski v Butler Ambulance Service Co - Agency.pdf. One of the issues here was whether or not the city was legally responsible for the acts of a driver working for a separate ambulance company in which the city had only assisted the ambulance company to obtain a federal grant to help pay for the ambulance. Under the Pennsylvania Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, a municipality is immune from claims such as this, unless its employee is the operator of the vehicle. The proceedings indicated that the driver was not a city employee, after which the municipality was dismissed, but the ambulance company and driver remained as defendants. Did the City control or direct the activities of the driver to the extent that the City should be liable for the manner in which he operated the vehicle at the time of the accident? Please advocate for the plaintiff or the defendant and provide the basis for your position.
Answer:
cb
Explanation:
The plaintiff's argument may be that the City should be liable for the driver's actions because the City played a role in helping the ambulance company obtain a federal grant to pay for the ambulance.
Who is an advocate?In law, an advocate is a person who is professionally qualified to plead another's cause in a court of law.
The plaintiff may argue that the City should be held liable for the driver's actions because the City assisted the ambulance company in obtaining a federal grant to pay for the ambulance.
Furthermore, the plaintiff could argue that the City exercised some level of control or direction over the driver's actions while operating the ambulance.
Even though the driver was not technically a City employee, the plaintiff could argue that the City had some input or influence over the ambulance company's operations.
The defendant's argument, on the other hand, could be that the City had no control or direction over the driver's actions and thus should not be held liable for the accident.
The defendant could claim that the City's role was limited to assisting the ambulance company in obtaining the grant and that the City had no say in how the ambulance company operated.
The defendant may also claim that the driver was not a City employee and that the City had no direct influence over his actions.
Thus, the court must weigh the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine whether or not the City is liable for the driver's actions.
For more details regarding advocacy, visit:
https://brainly.com/question/31316893
#SPJ2
Police officer placing sign outside a rail station that says 'Waiting Room for White Only.'
© 2012 The Associated Press
This police office is placing a sign outside a rail station. He is enforcing the ruling in
D.C. v. Heller
Plessy v. Ferguson
Marbury v. Madison
Brown v. Board of Education
Answer:
The answer would be "B" or Plessy V. Ferguson
Answer:
the answer is B, Plessy v. Ferguson.
Explanation:
Have a great day!! Hope this helps!!
