you are not confident with‚ it is what underlies the codes of practise and it should be built into your practise on a day to day level. Exercising your duty of care is also a legal requirement‚ and is tested in court in the event of a case of negligence or malpractice. Aii People have the right to expect that when a professional is providing support‚ they will be treated fairly‚ respect is given‚ they will be kept safe and not exposed to any unnecessary risks and not to be neglected. Having
Premium Medical malpractice Law Health care
GLENDALE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-672 Plaintiff: Michael Barnes Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO” Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010 Background Facts: Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store
Premium Meaning of life Law Sodium
Accountant liability law varies across states within the United States. Clearly‚ accountants are liable to their clients for any mistakes that they make within their realm of work. However‚ the liability becomes questionable when dealing with third parties. A company may have many affluent stakeholders relying on their financial statements in order to make important decisions‚ which may have monetary impacts. Therefore‚ an auditor’s precision is imperative. There have been many proposals in which
Premium Tort Accountant Audit
INTRODUCTION Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) This famous case established the civil law tort of negligence and obliged manufacturers to have a duty of care towards their customers. The events of the complaint took place in Scotland on Sunday evening on 26th August 1928‚ when Ms May Donoghue (Appellant) was given a bottle of ginger beer‚ purchased by a friend. The bottle was later discovered to contain a decomposing snail. Since the bottle was not of clear glass‚ Donoghue was not aware of the snail
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence
person or property. It wouldn’t qualify for an intentional tort because Arnold and Sylvia did not willfully take actions that were likely to cause injury. Duty‚ Branch of Duty‚ Causation‚ and Damages are all required in order for a plaintiff to prove negligence of a defendant. The reasonable person standard‚ which the courts use to determine whether or not an individual owes a duty of care to another‚ states that the courts generally hold that landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their
Premium Tort Tort law Law
Services Act‚ Building Regs. Express terms Implied terms Negligence ‘Nonnegligence’ Liabilities co-exist‚ also with overlaps between categories Negligence • The omission to do something that a reasonable person would do; or doing something that a reasonable person would not do. • Duty of care owed. • Breach of that duty of care. • Test is whether person has matched the abilities of a reasonable person. Professional Negligence • Professional person is presented as having special or particular
Premium Tort law Tort Negligence
To begin with‚ one must review the state law to determine both employer and employee rights. This case occurred in Ohio‚ and after reviewing the state law‚ it is determined that employers are in fact protected from defamation lawsuits unless one of the following occurs. First‚ the protection is available unless the employer intentionally discloses information knowing that it was false before the disclosure. Second‚ if the employer deliberately intended to mislead the prospective employer by disclosing
Premium Tort Law Tort law
Medical Law Facts of the case:- A medical doctor had assisted a lady in labour The Later facts revealed that a few months in of the Childs growth the parents discovered a problem which was very worrying They later learnt from a professional that there child had deficiencies which capped his mobility on the left arm and the left leg Duty of Care: Breach of Duty: The first issue is the standard of care in which the doctor will be judged on and it is going to be judged on the reasonable
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law
The trial judge found that Australian Safeway Stores Pty Limited (the appellant) already mopped up the wet floor to perform its duties‚ it did not show unreasonable. As a result‚ he found that the appellant did not breach the duty of care and so he dismissed the respondent’s suit. (Zaluzna) However‚ the respondent appeal to the Full Court and stated that the Trial Judge was wrong in law in finding that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a general duty of care. The Counsel held three reasons
Premium Law Tort Tort law
McDonald’s coffee (Cain‚ 2007). These injuries gave her the right to file suit against McDonald’s in order to recuperate damages. This would be classified as a negligent tort since the injuries that Liebeck sustained are considered to be due to negligence on McDonald’s part (Cain‚ 2007). McDonald’s had over 700 claims of burns from their customers and did not take any action to rectify the matter by either lowering the temperature or by clearly labeling their coffee (Cain‚ 2007). In addition to
Premium Law Tort Negligence