Business Law, Tort Law
Business Law 1 Mid Term
Teshvinder Singh Chopra
SEGi University College: American Degree Program
2 July 2010
Accordingly, as with the situation, Tim has sustained injuries from the incident. The person at fault for Tim 's condition is surely Danny, as he had parked his car illegally, which definitely breaking the rules, and he as well forgotten to engage the parking brake. This caused the car to roll back and eventually hits an electric wire and the sparks from the ignition of the electric wire spreads to a nearby car. The car then explodes and a piece of it injures Tim, a pedestrian, like any other, who coincidentally was passing by. In this case, Tim can definitely claim against Danny as Danny has surely commit a tortuous action towards Tim. Tort is a French word for wrong and tort has three categories namely intentional torts, unintentional torts (negligence), and strict liability (Cheeseman, 2010). This case is specifically classified as unintentional tort or negligence. The victim could claim damages sought from the offending party (Cheeseman, 2010). Since Tim was injured, he could bring a civil lawsuit against Danny. This is possible as there are criteria concerning the conduct of negligence. Firstly, Danny owed Tim the duty of care. Meaning of duty of care is the obligation people owe each other not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk to them (Cheeseman, 2010). Danny has the obligation to make sure that his car did not cause any harm or injury towards others or the environment, which is definitely not the case as he had forgotten to put on his handbrake. A perfect case example is of the Liebeck v. McDonald 's Restaurants(1994), where the plaintiff were awarded $200000 compensatory damages(reduced by $40000 for her own negligence) because of McDonald 's negligence. Liebeck was injured in her thighs,legs,groin and buttocks, as she opened the lid of the coffee cup she bought from McDonald 's, which she put it on her lap. The contents in the cup
Teshvinder Singh Chopra
SEGi University College: American Degree Program
2 July 2010
Accordingly, as with the situation, Tim has sustained injuries from the incident. The person at fault for Tim 's condition is surely Danny, as he had parked his car illegally, which definitely breaking the rules, and he as well forgotten to engage the parking brake. This caused the car to roll back and eventually hits an electric wire and the sparks from the ignition of the electric wire spreads to a nearby car. The car then explodes and a piece of it injures Tim, a pedestrian, like any other, who coincidentally was passing by. In this case, Tim can definitely claim against Danny as Danny has surely commit a tortuous action towards Tim. Tort is a French word for wrong and tort has three categories namely intentional torts, unintentional torts (negligence), and strict liability (Cheeseman, 2010). This case is specifically classified as unintentional tort or negligence. The victim could claim damages sought from the offending party (Cheeseman, 2010). Since Tim was injured, he could bring a civil lawsuit against Danny. This is possible as there are criteria concerning the conduct of negligence. Firstly, Danny owed Tim the duty of care. Meaning of duty of care is the obligation people owe each other not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk to them (Cheeseman, 2010). Danny has the obligation to make sure that his car did not cause any harm or injury towards others or the environment, which is definitely not the case as he had forgotten to put on his handbrake. A perfect case example is of the Liebeck v. McDonald 's Restaurants(1994), where the plaintiff were awarded $200000 compensatory damages(reduced by $40000 for her own negligence) because of McDonald 's negligence. Liebeck was injured in her thighs,legs,groin and buttocks, as she opened the lid of the coffee cup she bought from McDonald 's, which she put it on her lap. The contents in the cup
References: Cheeseman, H. (2010). Business law. (7th ed.) New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Cone, T. (2005). Bradshaw v. Richey: Transferred intent in Ohio. Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://ussc.blogspot.com/2005/12/bradshaw-v-richey-transferred-intent.html Garret, T Giaschi, C. J. (2010). “Margaret Elizabeth No.1” et al., (June 10, 1997). Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www.admiraltylaw.com/personalinjury.html Giaschi, C Jepson, P. (2010). Tort cases. Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www.peterjepson.com/law/tort_cases.htm#Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] %20p/paris_v_stepney_borough_council.htm Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (2010). safetyphoto. Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www.safetyphoto.co.uk/subsite/case%20m%20n%20o Summers v Tedla v. Ellman (2010). Casebriefs. Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www.ecasebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-dobbs/the-prima-facie-case-for-negligence/tedla-v-ellman/ Wilkinson v