Tort of Negligence Damage and Injury In order for a claim of tortuous liability in negligence to be actionable‚ primarily‚ certain fundamental pre-requisites need to be established in each case respectively. The requirements of the modern tort of negligence were stated by Lord Wright in‚ Lochgelly and Coal Co ltd v McMullan‚ as being‚ i) the existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant; ii) a breach of that duty; iii) damage or injury caused by that breach of duty. Each aforesaid
Premium Tort Negligence Injury
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
Question 1 A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in a collision with another tram‚ which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with a system known as `dead man’s handle’‚ a system in use on Sydney’s trains. According to my findings‚ Dead Man’s Handle refers to an old train device: the dead man’s handle. It was typically some form of switch that the driver would keep
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
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
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE THE CHANGING COASTLINE OF LIABILITY John L. Powell Q.C. Even the briefest acquaintance with the world’s major financial centres‚ and especially Hong Kong‚ London or New York‚ immediately confirms that we live in world dominated by professionals. The magnificent multi-storey edifices adorning the shores of this and similar cities are the castles and palaces of the present age‚ proclaiming the influence and power of professionals
Premium Tort Negligence Common law
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
! ! ! 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
the facts of this case‚ using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) The facts of the case found in LexisNexis is: a child was burnt‚ not determined if the coffee was served scolding hot or not‚ no breach of warranty‚ and no negligence of emotional damage. 4. According to the case‚ why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress‚ and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) The court did approve punitive damages but Burger King had nothing to do with
Premium Negligence Product liability Tort