Stevan Jakovljevic
Professor Avdeev
Law 2010-05
Fall 2016
Case Brief
Term Researched: Duty of Care
Case Name: Howard D. Brunson (Plaintiff-Respondent) v. Affinity Federal Credit Union
Legal Citation: 954 A.2d 550 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2008)
Date Decided: May 05, 2009
Legal History: Howard D. Brunson the plaintiff filed a four count complaint in the Supreme Court of New Jersey against Affinity Federal Credit Union and Wilcox for being liable to him for malicious prosecution (Count 1); That Wilcox was liable to plaintiff to negligence (Count 2): That Affinity was liable to plaintiff in hiring of Wilcox (Count 3); and that the person who actually committed the crime was liable to the plaintiff in negligence. (Count 4). Affinity and Wilcox moved for entry of summary judgement in their favor and wanted the case dismissed because they plaintiff had failed to appear for a deposition or a response to a notice which was in lieu of subpoena. Even though the plaintiff objected the trial court granted both motions. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the appellate Division reversed and remanded.
Facts: Howard D. Brunson was accused and sued for …show more content…
He is suing the bank and the investigator because he was wrongly accused of opening these accounts but the investigator just jumped to conclusions and it affected Brunson’s life which now the court has to decide whether the bank owes responsibility to Brunson. For the court to use Duty of Care they needed to look at other similar cares and see if the bank should have prevented these fraud accounts from being opened up. Now the next issue is that Brunson is suing the bank for malicious prosecution and the court needs to decide whether Wilcox and the bank had conducted a thorough investigation before accusing Brunson. The Identification the imposter was using had so many errors on it and Wilcox should have seen the
Professor Avdeev
Law 2010-05
Fall 2016
Case Brief
Term Researched: Duty of Care
Case Name: Howard D. Brunson (Plaintiff-Respondent) v. Affinity Federal Credit Union
Legal Citation: 954 A.2d 550 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2008)
Date Decided: May 05, 2009
Legal History: Howard D. Brunson the plaintiff filed a four count complaint in the Supreme Court of New Jersey against Affinity Federal Credit Union and Wilcox for being liable to him for malicious prosecution (Count 1); That Wilcox was liable to plaintiff to negligence (Count 2): That Affinity was liable to plaintiff in hiring of Wilcox (Count 3); and that the person who actually committed the crime was liable to the plaintiff in negligence. (Count 4). Affinity and Wilcox moved for entry of summary judgement in their favor and wanted the case dismissed because they plaintiff had failed to appear for a deposition or a response to a notice which was in lieu of subpoena. Even though the plaintiff objected the trial court granted both motions. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the appellate Division reversed and remanded.
Facts: Howard D. Brunson was accused and sued for …show more content…
He is suing the bank and the investigator because he was wrongly accused of opening these accounts but the investigator just jumped to conclusions and it affected Brunson’s life which now the court has to decide whether the bank owes responsibility to Brunson. For the court to use Duty of Care they needed to look at other similar cares and see if the bank should have prevented these fraud accounts from being opened up. Now the next issue is that Brunson is suing the bank for malicious prosecution and the court needs to decide whether Wilcox and the bank had conducted a thorough investigation before accusing Brunson. The Identification the imposter was using had so many errors on it and Wilcox should have seen the