Law AY 2011-2012‚ Term 1 Group 8 Project Written Analysis Tort of Negligence Prepared for: Professor Melvyn Chew Written By: Jamie Lim Jia Qi (#12) Joel Koh Yong Kiat (#14) Low Hwan Hong (#23) Oh Zhan Yuan (#24) Ong Hui Ming Maria Nicolette (#25) G12 Throughout the course of this report‚ to determine if the plaintiff is owed a duty of care in negligence‚ we will adhere by the Singapore single test of negligence laid out in the case of Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
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
Question 1 What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences? Issue 1--duty of care The tort of negligence to be constituted depend on whether the defendant violate the principle of ‘Duty 0f Care’. Because of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1]‚ ‘Duty 0f Care’ has been established in common law: 1. Defendant whether or not fulfill the duty of care. 2. That defendant whether or not breached that duty. 3. whether Breach the duty of care is the main
Premium Tort law Law Negligence
! ! ! 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
ASSIGNMENT 8: Tort of Negligence Issue 1: Chew’s Losses - $300‚000‚ Anxiety‚ Medical bills and the Closure of his stall. Suing Chew under misrepresentation A special relationship between Chew and Don [Hedley Byrne v Heller] Representor has reasonable grounds to believe his statement was true. Is a term; as Chew would not invest in the bonds if not for Don’s words. Sue for negligent misrepresentation (Using “But-for” test to assess damages) Suing under the Tort of Negligence‚ Chew has to prove:
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
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
personal property. 6. If a person breaches a duty of care and another person suffers an injury‚ the breach must have caused the harm for liability to result. 7. In many states‚ the plaintiff’s negligence is a defense that may be raised in a negligence suit. 8. Negligence per se may occur on the violation of a statute. 9. Kelly is injured when she slips and falls on Lee’s sidewalk. To determine whether Lee owed a duty of care to Kelly‚ Lee is subject to the standard of
Premium Contract
1 Task – 1 1.1 Importance of Essential Elements of Contract Contract represents the instrument to enforce promises. Not all statements amount to enforceable promises or contracts. To enforce statements there are a number of elements which courts look for and these mainly include the presence of offer‚ its communication‚ its unconditional acceptance and communication of the acceptance. Once this has taken place then the element of consideration gives the badge of enforceability to the contract and
Premium Contract
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
In Defense of Negligence Crystal J. Bolden Professor Nekia S. Hackworth Elmo Puppeteer Sued over Sexual Allegations November 28‚ 2012 Relevant Facts in the case of Kevin Clash 1 According to New York Daily News‚ November 2012 the voice behind the little red furry friend Elmo from “Sesame Street” is being sued by three different accusers for inappropriate sexual conduct towards under aged kids. The first accuser came fourth stating that he had sexual relations with Kevin
Free Human sexual behavior Sexual intercourse Child sexual abuse