A plaintiff who was a citizen of State A was traveling to adjoining State B to visit his relatives. While still in State A, the plaintiff's auto was struck in the rear by a vehicle driven by the defendant, a citizen of State B. The plaintiff suffered personal injuries and damage to his vehicle amounting to approximately $90,000. The plaintiff filed suit in the federal district court for State A and obtained proper service of process on the defendant. Under the laws of State A, the driver of a vehicle that strikes another vehicle in the rear is presumed to have acted negligently, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Neither the law of State B nor the federal statutes or case law has adopted such a rule. Should the court apply the presumption in question

Yes, because the presumption at issue operates upon elements of the prima facie case.

Explanation:

Based on the scenario illustrated in the question, the court should apply the presumption. It should be noted the federal court should be able to apply the state law where the court sits in a case that relates to the diversity of the citizenship under the Erie doctrine.

In this case, the court should apply the presumption in question because the presumption at issue operates upon elements of the prima facie case. It should be noted that the matters that has to do with prima facie case are substantive therefore state law should be applied to such scenarios.

"quid pro quo" harassment takes place when a supervisor requires sex, sexual favors, or sexual contact from an employee/job candidate as a condition of their employment. only supervisors who have the authority to make tangible employment actions (i.e. hire, fire, promote, can commit "quid pro quo" harassment.

same

they had banned mine while i was answering a question