Need an argumentative essay on Workers Are Injured in the Line of Duty. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism.CaseNo.3:04-CV-254-KRG-KAP Plaintiff, v. Cooper Industries, Ltd is of a wrongful death

Need an argumentative essay on Workers Are Injured in the Line of Duty. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism.

CaseNo.3:04-CV-254-KRG-KAP Plaintiff, v. Cooper Industries, Ltd is of a wrongful death and survivor action from the fatal injury that was suffered by Paul Leonard as a workplace, namely Altoona Pipe and Steel Company, on July 10, 2002. The plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the plate clamp manufactured by the defendant caused the injury to Leonard and puts a strict liability claiming that the clamp was designed defectively and claimed negligence that the clamp was designed negligently. A breach of warrant claims that the clamp was not merchantable. A breach of warrant claims that the clamp was not merchantable. The defendant filed for three claims. However, docket no.20 claims that the summary judgment should only be granted as strict liability, as well as breach of warranty claims that the negligence claims should proceed to a jury trial. Leonard was thirty years and worked as a painter at the Altoona and Steel Company in Altoona. The federal rule of civil procedure requires that the pleading. Admissions on file, answers to interrogatories, together with affidavits, are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A fact is material proof of non-existence or its existence and might affect the outcome of the suit under the law. Case two is about Klewinowski alleges that he was injured on March 20, 2008, who was working as a laborer for non-party Tully Construction on Houston Reconstruction project in Manhattan. A light pole knocked down and struck him. He has induced a coma for eight days and sustained numerous fractures and a broken pelvis. The construction area is a public street owned by the city, in which the city had given Tully a contract, which entered into a contract with Welsbach, an electrical contractor to perform electrical work as erecting temporary poles. The city is also said to enter a separate account with A& W to perform engineering services. However, at the time of the accident, Klewinowski is said to be standing at the west side of the median waiting to begin his work. Another employee who was working beside him was operating a caterpillar with a boom attached to it. He was using the boom to move the pipes that were located on one side of the street. Klewinowski claims that he is entitled to labor law judgment claiming the law compels that strict liability on agents and owners as well as the defendants to meet their criteria. He also claims that the city is liable for his injuries because it is the one who gave him the project, as well as Welsbach and A&W who were obliged to monitor the work, in addition to the use of caterpillar and neglecting the concrete and overhead wire. However, Welsbach, A&W, and the city oppose the plaintiff’s motion to seek the judgment dismissing his labor laws and other cross-claims among them. Normally, when the defendants adopt each other arguments as to the reason why the plaintiffs complain should be dismissed, they are said to raise opposing arguments as to why, and if the complains are not dismissed, they are entitled to summary judgments across their cross-claims. These two cases are similar in the sense that, the plaintiffs here are workers of the above-explained companies who are injured in the line of duty, and a result sues the respective companies.