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
to someone else could be considered negligence. In the case with Mr. Benson in the Neighborhood Newspaper article‚ a mistake was made that was irreversible. He went into the hospital to have his leg amputated‚ and the doctor amputated the wrong leg. The question is was the doctor negligent in his practice? Is the amputation of the wrong leg considered to be malpractice on the doctor’s part? This paper will differentiate between negligence‚ gross negligence‚ and malpractice. After differentiating
Premium Surgery Amputation Physician
! ! ! Liability for Negligence! 1. The Duty! PURE ECONOMIC LOSS ! Neighbour Test (Donoghue v Stevenson): Care must be taken to avoid acts Salient Features Test (Perre v Apand): Neighbour test is not enough in cases of which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who are pure economic loss to establish a duty of care‚ which caused a need for further persons I ought to reasonably have in contemplation as I take an action/omission. tests to identify
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Meat production is an issue that impacts on the environment. Some of effects that have been associated with meat are pollution‚ fossil fuels‚ and water and land consumption. In March/April of 2010 Bill McKibben published an article called “The Only Way to have a Cow” in Orion magazine. In the article‚ McKibben discusses the benefits of eating less meat which can result in a reduction in carbon emissions as cattle breeding has a big greenhouse effect. He believes that people should rarely eat meat
Premium Greenhouse gas Meat Climate change
CASE ONE: LAW OF TORT An accident was occurred by the car driven by Azhar with the disabled lorry which has been stalled by Ah Chan. Two of these persons have made their own fault as what happened on case Ramachandran a/l Mayandy v. Abdul Rahman bin Ambok. First of all‚ Azhar has derived his vehicle along a state road at slightly above the speed limit and his vehicle was equipped with a seatbelt but Azhar was not wearing it at the time of the collision. In addition‚ the impact of the collision
Premium Tort Common law Negligence
Concurrent liability Text [13.45] – [13.65]‚ [13.80] – [13.120] Vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for a tort committed by an employee within the course of employment Stevens v Brodribb sawmilling the existence of control between an employer and employee is not enough to prove a relationship for vicarious liability. Further criteria such as obligation to work‚ hours to work etc is also considered Elazac pty ltd v Sheriff the plaintiff was not an employee but a contractor
Premium Tort law Tort
found negligent by having a water spill on the floor. However‚ the factors of the time frame‚ that the spill was open and obvious‚ and that Trina did not know of the spill could remove her negligence. Additionally‚ Karen Logan was contributorily negligent here‚ absolving Trina of any negligence claim. Negligence To be negligent‚ the condition of defendant’s property must present an unreasonable risk of harm to people on the property. Here‚ the puddle of water in the middle of the floor was not
Premium Tort law Common law Tort
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 would not incur liability to ABC ltd. Only when it leads to the damage by negligence‚ which is actionable‚ would incur liability. In Donoghue v Stevenson‚ friends of Mrs. Donoghue
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability to arise. Occupiers’ liability is perhaps a distinct form of negligence in that there must be a duty of care and breach of duty‚ causing damage. The rules of remoteness apply to occupiers liability in the exact same way that they apply to negligence claims. Liability can arise on occupiers for omissions since their relationship gives rise to duty to take action to ensure the reasonable safety of visitors
Premium Tort law Tort
Islands once They were Invaded by the German Army?”. Historians’ studies have diverged on their interpretation of this World War II event. To evaluate England’s extent of negligence‚ the living conditions of the Channel Islanders under German occupation are compared to those of the citizens living on mainland Britain. British negligence is primarily addressed before the invasion of the Channel Islands‚ during occupation‚ and after recapture of the Islands. Diary entries are mostly used to identify the
Premium United Kingdom World War II British Isles