Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-30642 April 30‚ 1985 PERFECTO S. FLORESCA‚ in his own behalf and on behalf of the minors ROMULO and NESTOR S. FLORESCA; and ERLINDA FLORESCA-GABUYO‚ PEDRO S. FLORESCA‚ JR.‚ CELSO S. FLORESCA‚ MELBA S. FLORESCA‚ JUDITH S. FLORESCA and CARMEN S. FLORESCA; LYDIA CARAMAT VDA. DE MARTINEZ in her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children LINDA‚ ROMEO‚ ANTONIO JEAN and ELY‚ all surnamed Martinez; and DANIEL MARTINEZ and TOMAS
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
Savannah‚as the railroad was negligent in loading the train which caused the cargo to shift during the trip‚finally the wood got damaged. Issue The issue of the case is that which party should bear the risk of loss given that the railroad’s negligence in loading the train during transport caused the damage to the goods and the contract indicates Mitsubishi would import the wood from Taiwan and deliver it to Crown’s plant in Atlanta. Rule A destination contract requires the seller to deliver
Premium Tort Common law The Damage
is a two-stage test of establishing legal proximity and considering public policies‚ following the fulfilment of the threshold of factual foreseeability. The Spandeck test is said to be universal and applicable to all types of harm resulting from negligence. Claims for physical injury‚ psychiatric injury and pure economic losses have been successfully addressed with the Spandeck test. Similarly‚ cases concerning occupier’s liability can be addressed by applying the Spandeck test too to determine whether
Premium Law Tort Common law
liability or negligence‚ which allows a person injured by an unreasonably dangerous product to recover damages from the manufacturer or seller of the product even in the absence of a contract or negligent conduct on the part of the manufacturer or seller (Bagley‚ 2013). Therefore‚ Wood should recover damages even if the seller exercised all possible care in the manufacture and sale of the product‚ because the defect in the product is the basis for liability (Bagley‚ 2013). Negligence claims could
Free Product liability Tort Negligence
Week 7 Breach of the Duty of Care Negligence Duty of care Established or novel duty? Is it a non-delegable duty? What is the scope of the duty? Breach of duty What is the relevant standard of care? Has the standard been breached? Damage Is it recognized by law? Was the breach a necessary condition of the harm? Is the harm within the scope of the defendant’s liability? Breach of Duty The fault part of the negligence action An act or omission of the defendant A failure to act as a reasonable person
Premium Tort law Reasonable person Negligence
Negligence Paper Ann Fairvalley University of Phoenix HCS/ 478 Negligence Paper Imagine waking up in the recovery room from being sedated for a procedure in which one of your limbs has been amputated. While in recovery you are in and out of consciousness. Finally after being in recovery for 2 hours you are taken to a step down unit to recover and receive teaching and therapy. After getting settled into bed you gets the guts to throw back you sheets and take a look where
Premium Hospital Joint Commission Physician
124 Nev. 213‚ 180 P.3d 1172(2008) PROCEDURAL HISTORY The case begin when Mrs. Turner filed a complaint in district court against the Las Vegas 51s‚ alleging negligence and Mr. Turner complaint for loss of consortium‚ and negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED). The district court concluded that Mrs. Turner’s negligence claim failed because the Las Vegas 51s did not owe a duty to protect her from the foul ball in question. Also‚ Mr. Turner’s claim for loss of consortium and NIED failed
Premium Negligence Tort law Law
Assumption of Risk PARA 200 Assumption of Risk Assumption of risk provides a defense to a claim of negligence in cases where the plaintiff knowingly exposes himself or herself to danger and assumes responsibility for any harm. It is based on the premises that an individual is responsible for the consequences of choice (Tort Law for Paralegals‚ 2010). What is usually meant by assumption of risk is more precisely termed primary assumption of risk. It occurs when the plaintiff has either expressly
Premium Tort Tort law Common law
Lecture 14 Tort Re Ipsa Loquitur & Defence to Negligence res ipsa loquitur- the facts speak for themselves It means that the plaintiff can prima facie establish negligence where the facts are so obvious that somebody must be negligent otherwise the accident would not have happen. In the common law of negligence‚ the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Latin: the thing speaks for itself) states that the elements of duty of care and breach can be sometimes inferred from the very
Premium Tort law Tort Duty of care
the individual for personal loss where the loss was caused by another person. It is based on Common Law. NEGLIGENCE - Negligence is one of many types of Torts. Negligence is now the dominant Tort and the focus of this topic. DEFINITION: Conduct that falls below the standard of care demanded for the protection of others against the unreasonable risk of harm. To establish a claim for Negligence the plaintiff must prove three essential elements:(1)
Premium Tort Law Common law