Intentional torts‚ negligence‚ and strict liability ASSIGNMENT Explain the general differences between intentional torts‚ negligence‚ and strict liability. Additionally‚ explain the elements of intentional torts and negligence and provide working examples to illustrate each. FACTS 1. Intentional torts are actions with the purpose or intention to injure another person or that person’s property. The person inflicting the harm is called a tortfeasor. Intentional torts require
Premium Tort Tort law Common law
TORTS Table of Contents Breach of Duty 3 General Principles for Establish a Breach of Duty 3 The Calculus of Negligence 4 Who is the Reasonable Person? 9 Causation 13 Factual Causation under the Common Law 13 Factual Causation under Statute 16 Novus Actus Interveniens 18 Successive Causes 20 Exceptional Cases 21 Remoteness 24 Foreseeability of Damage 24 Kind of Injury and Manner of its Occurrence 25 Eggshell Skull Rule 26 Concurrent Liability 28 Vicarious Liability 28 Non-delegable
Premium Negligence Tort law Common 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
Definitions Assignment - TORT Intentional Torts – Intentional Torts are battery‚ assault‚ false imprisonment‚ trespass to land‚ trespass to chattel‚ and conversion. See examples of each below. Battery – The intentional unlawful‚ harmful‚ or offensive touching of the person of another. Example: The verbal argument has escalated to the point that Susan raised her hand and slapped Joe on the cheek. Susan committed battery against Joe. Assault – The intentional threatening of another with
Premium Tort Tort law
Torts Exam Notes Intentional Torts Trespass to the Person Battery - directly and intentionally (or negligently) bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another - the ‘body is inviolate‚ and that any touching of another person‚ however slight may amount to a battery’ - Rixon - doesn’t have to cause harm - Rixon v Starcity Casino - Collins v Wilcock - no requirement of hostility or anger - Wilson v Pringle - In Re F - exception is made
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
out all the decorations on that circuit. Joey sues Mr. Jones for negligence. Please answer the following questions in approximately one paragraph each based on the courseware and what you learned in class. There is no need to research or use case law to answer these questions. 1) For purposes of liability Of land occupiers‚ what class of entrants is Joey considered part of? What are the rights of this class of entrants? What special rule or doctrine could potentially lead to Mr. Jones’ liability
Premium Tort Tort law
GROUP 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
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Wal-Mart because they have the “deepest pockets” and would most likely be the only defendant with enough money to pay out compensation. Wal-Mart would be vicariously liable for Dales actions. b) The causes of action taken on Dale are the tort of false imprisonment‚ the tort of assault and battery‚ and negligence. If the customer‚ Bob‚ has not stolen any goods there is no justification for holding Bob. Bob was intentionally restrained against his will‚ and there was no lawful reason to do so. This restraint
Premium Tort Law Tort law
LA110 Torts and Litigation I Week 4 Homework Assignment Part 2 Assignment: Answer all questions in paragraph format. Chapter 9 page 143: Review Questions 1 - 15 1. A vicarious liability is one person or a third party‚ may be found liable for the act of another or shares liability with the actor. 2. Imputed negligence is places upon one person responsibility for the negligence of another. 3. A respondent superior is a master liable in certain circumstances for the wrongful acts of his
Premium Tort law Employment Agency
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Limited v.The Miller Steamship Co. Pty. Limited and another (Wagon Mound No 2)‚ Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales‚ 1966 There are extracts from this case at p. 80 of Weinrib and then a summary of the result of this case at p 183. The case has some important passages beyond what appear in the p. 80 extract. Please add the following to your reading: LORD REID‚ LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST‚ LORD PEARCE‚ LORD WILBERFORCE
Premium Tort Common law Tort law