Comparing Natural Law to Legal Realism in the case of Carlton versus Wa

In the case of Carlton vs. Walkovzsky, I will discuss facts, main efficacious issues, mass findings and reasons for the dissent. This case took place on phratry 26, 1966 in the court of Appeals of New York. Judge Fuld J wrote the majority decision, put together of music 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 last prove that the theory of Natural Law is more applicable to the case. consort to the facts in this case, Walkovszky was hit by a cab four age ago in New York and the cab was negligently operated by suspect Marches. The defendant Carlton, who is being sued, owned and ran the cab company in which he set up ten corporations, including Seon. severally of the corporations had two cabs registered in its name. The lower limit automobile liability insurance required by the uprightness was $10,000. consort to the opinion of the court the plaintiff as serted that he is also ? empower to hold their stock holder personally liable for return, be find multiple collective 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 soft palate 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 ... ...ook at the fact that he had fair to middling money to put forward to his liability insurance. However, he chose not to and he stayed with the minimum amount, which Carlton knew would not be e nough to cover any satisfactory damages of an injury. In referring Legal Realism to this case, Legal Realism git be defined as the way judges formulate law from their own personal conception of justice, not from precedent or rules. Each decision involves a personal choice. Judge Flud gave the majority decision in the case and his decision is that Carlton came from a higher background. Flud?s background already holds a high stance in society, therefore it affected his decision in the case in favor of Carlton and not Walkovszky. This higher status enabled Fuld to appreciate Carlton?s perspective and what it might mean if Walkovszky was able to piece the corporate veil.