In the case of Carlton vs. Walkovzsky, I will discuss facts, main legal issues, majority decisions and reasons for the dissent. This case took place on September 26, 1966 in the court of Appeals of New York. Judge Fuld J wrote the majority decision, while Judge Keating wrote the dissenting decision in the case. I will be applying Natural Law and Legal Realism to the case to argue my position, and ultimately prove that the theory of Natural Law is more applicable to the case.
According to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four years ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by defendant Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. Each of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law was $10,000. According to the opinion of the court the plaintiff asserted that he is also ?entitled to hold their stock holder personally liable for damages, because multiple corporate structures constitutes an unlawful attempt to defraud the general member of the public.?
The main legal issue before the court arises, in determining whether liability should be extended to reach assets beyond those belonging to the corporation and whether the corporate veil should be pierced with regard to personal liability to others.
Judge Flud wrote the majority decision in the case, and found that Carlton was not personally liable for the damages to Walkovszky. Flud also found that in his reasoning, Walkovsky has ?failed to state a valid cause of action against defendant Carlton?. Flud states that if the corporation were run purely for personal reasons and not the benefit of the corporation, then there would be a cause to hold the share holders liable, however this is not the case here and Carlton has followed every step of the law and therefore he is not liable for the cost beyond the minimum automobile liability insurance required by the law. The appeal was dismissed and Walkovsky has to pay for court costs.
The main reason that supports the decision in the case is because Carlton has followed every step that was set out by the law, which is the minimum ten thousand dollars and he always has proper funds in his account. In the majority reasoning the judge said ?if Carlton was held individually liable, then the decision would apply equally to thousands of cabs, which is owned by their individual drivers who conduct their business through corporations under the business corporation law?. In...