Tort Law and Cases: A Comparison of Two Cases and Their Potential Frivolity8/22/2010 | Introduction “A tort is a civil wrong resulting in injury to a person or property”; that is brought before a court to compensate the injured party (Bagley & Savage‚ 2010‚ pg 251). In order to prove an intentional tort‚ the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation 4) Injury or Harm. The following tort cases‚ Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck
Premium Tort Tort law
Intentional Torts A. A person acts with intent to produce a consequence if: 1. the person has the purpose of producing that consequence; OR 2. the person knows to a substantial certainty that the consequence will ensue from the person s conduct B. Battery 1. An actor commits battery if he acts intending: a. to cause a harmful or offensive contact to person of other or a third person OR b. to cause imminent apprehension of such contact AND c
Premium Battery Assault Tort law
Assignments PLG-101-1401: Torts & Personal Injury Assignment 1 (based on class 1): View submitted answer Please find on Lexis and read the following case: Watson v. Dixon‚ 130 N.C. App. 47 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998). Then‚ please answer‚ in one to two paragraphs each‚ each of the following questions: ) 1) What were the essential facts of that case? Watson and Dixon were both employed with Duke in the Sterile Processing Department of the Medical Center‚ when Watson began to experience
Premium Negligence North Carolina Rape
TORT TUTORIAL 7 * Differences between libel and slander. Is the distinction of practical significance? Defamation protects an individuals reputation. Slander refers to a malicious‚ false‚ and defamatory spoken statement or report (non- permanent)‚ while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.(permanent) The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material
Premium Tort Human rights Abuse
Review June‚ 1997 W. Page Keeton Symposium on Tort Law MIXED THEORIES OF TORT LAW: AFFIRMING BOTH DETERRENCE AND CORRECTIVE JUSTICE Gary T. Schwartza Copyright (c) 1997 Texas Law Review Association; Gary T. Schwartz Introduction Currently there are two major camps of tort scholars. One understands tort liability as an instrument aimed largely at the goal of deterrence‚ commonly explained within the framework of economics. The other looks at tort law as a way of achieving corrective justice between
Premium Tort Negligence
Intentional Tort of Defense Erica Davis Introduction to Tort June 7‚ 2012 Facts On a Saturday night there were an incident between two males and a female in a bar called Bottom’s Up. A man name John had too much to drink and was intoxicated. He was shouting obscenities toward a lady name Jane that was sitting at a table next to another guy name Leroy‚ which he was a frequent customer. However‚ Jane ignored John and continued to drink her beer. When she ignored him than he approached her looking
Premium Tort law Injury Grammatical person
Issues Identified: 1. Whether William has an action in common negligence against Edmund. 2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund 3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS 4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS Pleadings: 1. William v Edmund A. Duty of care Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
DETERMINING CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR ON SAFE DRINKING WATER [pic] A Project Report Submitted in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the Degree of Master of Business Administration 2009-2011 Submitted By: Under the Guidance of: JUNAID AHMAD MRS.ANJALI SHARMA [pic] BHARATI VIDYAPEETH UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH‚ NEW DELHI An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Institute
Premium Drinking water Water supply Water purification
If the defendant has duty of care to the plaintiff and breaches his duty of care‚ as long as it can be proved that the defendant’s careless conduct causes damage‚ injury or loss to the plaintiff while the damages are foreseeable‚ the defendant will be liable to negligence. The following shows why ABC ltd is negligent and therefore liable to Johnny and Kenneth. Negligence is behavior that falls below the standard of reasonable‚ prudent and competent people. The careless behavior alone of the waiter
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
TORTS EXAM 2 STUDY GUIDE NEGLIGENCE • Negligence: The failure of individuals to appreciate the risks caused by their conduct. • Synonymous with carelessness did not intend to cause harm to Plaintiff • To determine whether negligence exists‚ must ask: 1. Was the Defendant’s conduct unreasonable? 2. Did the Defendant cause the Plaintiff’s injury? Elements of Negligence: 1. Duty by the Defendant to the Plaintiff 2. Defendant breached the duty of reasonable care 3. Defendant’s actions were
Premium Tort Tort law