Assignment I- Case Brief: McCarty v. Pheasant Run ‚ Inc. Prof Lindsey Appiah Tort Law October 28‚ 2012 Summary of Case Mrs. Dula McCarty brought suit against Pheasant Run Inc. for negligence. In 1981‚ Mrs. McCarty was attacked by a man in her hotel room‚ beaten and threatened of rape. Mrs. McCarty ultimately fought off her attacker and he fled. The attacker was never identified nor brought to justice. Although Mrs. McCarty did not sustain serious physical injuries‚ she claimed the incident
Premium Tort Law Tort law
2 Contents Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Chapter 8 Chapter 9 Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Chapter 13 Introduction Negligence: basic principles Negligence: duty of care and breach of duty Negligence: causation and remoteness of damage Negligence: special problems Negligence: particular relationships Breach of statutory duty Particular statutory regimes: strict liability Intentional injuries to the person Interference with economic interests The
Premium Tort Common law Law
Canada Ltd‚ Mr. Jacobsen an employer of Nike Canada Ltd was seriously injured in a car accident as a result of alcohol consumption while at work. This paper will prove that the defendant (Nike Canada Ltd.) was negligent in all the four elements of “Negligence “ and therefore liable for the injuries. Also it will explain for any legal defense that the employer (Nike Canada Ltd.) might be able to raise. Relevant Facts. Mr. Jacobsen was an employee of Nike Canada Ltd. The employer‚ through its representative
Premium Tort Negligence Law
liability this law a law applies to manufactures that manufacture and sell products that can be potentially harmful to the consumer. Strict liability tort and negligent tort are similar but with strict liability the victim does not have to prove their negligence. In the case of the keyless entry the malfunction occurs when the car owner exits the car. At this time the car should automatically shut off after a certain period of time. However the car does not and the engine continues to run. The car owners
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law
HI 5018 BUSINESS LAW Week 4 Application of Negligence to Business Chapter 9 Applications of Negligence to Business Chapter objectives On completion of this chapter‚ you should be able to: identify and discuss the application of the tort of negligence to the following: a) occupier’s liability b)strict liability c) negligent misstatements d)employer or vicarious liability e) breach of statutory duty f) criminal negligence HI 5018 BUSINESS LAW T2 2014 3 3 1 Chapter objectives On completion
Premium Law Tort law Tort
Liability Act 1936‚ the word negligence is defined as doing or failing to do a thing that a reasonable person would or would not do in certain type of situation and this may cause a person to suffer from any damage‚ injury or loss as a result. And in order to access the negligence of any individual as well as the liability that those individuals may encounter due to their act of negligent‚ it is important to know how negligence is determined in law. According to the Law of Negligence‚ the Panel is requested
Premium Tort Law Tort law
heed a warning is not contributory negligence if the injury was the result of a different source of risk caused by the defendant‚ and the injured party was unaware of that risk.” “Solomon v. Shuell – Plain clothes police officers were arresting robbery suspects. The decedent thought the suspects were being attacked and was shot by one of the officers when he came out of his house with a gun. The court held that under the rescue doctrine‚ contributory negligence is not present if the rescuer had a
Premium Tort Law Duty of care
follows: The Happy Hour Sports Bar‚ bar owner and employee Bertha Young male bar patron The Issues The facts of this case may give rise to an action for damages on the basis of excessive force causing injury. This case may also include a claim of negligence on the part of the employee Bertha‚ since she threw the patron in the direction where the head injury would not likely have occurred. Also‚ the case deals with the rights of an occupier of property to eject a person from property‚ and the application
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Gross Negligence Manslaughter Bateman 1925 A doctor’s negligent treatment of his patient resulted in death. ‘Gross Negligence’ was the basis for criminal liability. The test stated in that case was: Does the conduct of the accused show such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the state and conduct deserving punishment? Andrews 1937 It was stated that where there is a charge of gross negligence manslaughter‚ simple lack of care that would constitute
Premium Criminal law Reasonable person Negligence
Identify and explain the four elements of proof necessary for a plaintiff to prove a negligence case. The four elements necessary to prove a negligence case are duty of care‚ breach of that duty‚ injury‚ and causation. The first requirement in establishing negligence is for a plaintiff to prove the existence of a legal relationship between himself or herself and the defendant. Duty is defined as a legal obligation of care‚ performance‚ or observation imposed on one to safeguard the rights of
Premium Tort law Law Tort