his mining activities. Dana sues John for trespass to land. 1) John claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not conduct any activity that is above ground on Dana’s land. Based on the courseware and your own knowledge of tort law‚ explain why John is correct or incorrect. There is no need to cite any cases for this question. 2) John next claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not intentionally mine under Dana’s land. Please find and cite a single
Premium Tort Tort law
1. Evaluate and discuss the potential liability (negligence or other torts) of the various parties in the scenario involving but not limited to Bobby‚ ACE Sports‚ the nurse‚ the surgeon and City General. (Avoid simply restating the facts/scenario. Incorporate them into your discussion.) 2. Be sure to discuss the elements of negligence as they apply to each party separately‚ and also discuss the application of EMTALA. 3. Define comparative negligence and discuss its application to
Premium Hospital Tort law Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
land‚ or some right over or in connection with is nuisance (Winfield and Jolowich on tort) examples are noise‚ fumes‚ dust e.t.c. There are 3 different actions in nuisance but the ones of concern are private‚ public and Rylands and Fletcher (strict liability).the objective of nuisance is to protect an individual’s interest in land. The scenario to be analysed below is to advise Banger of his potential liability in tort since the occupier/ controller of the land (country house)‚ and the creator of the
Premium Tort
Review: Unit 2 Unit 45: P3- Present one complex piece of work as an example to demonstrate the use of resources within own studies. Resources used: Books (health and social care text books‚ As level book) Internet websites Pamphlets Moodle Teachers City hospital care workers ( outside of college) In my unit 2 I began to use the health and social care text books that I found in the library and borrowed out for a few weeks. By doing this I gained a better understanding of the subject
Premium Understanding Scientific method Explanation
Intentional Tort Paper Unit 3 Holly Cord Kaplan University PA165-01 Intentional Torts Black’s Law Dictionary defines assault as “the threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.” This means that the tortfeasor does not have to make physical contact with the victim. The victim only needs to be placed under a reasonable amount of fear that the physical contact will occur. In fact if physical contact does
Premium Management Sociology Contract
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
CASE ONE: LAW OF TORT An accident was occurred by the car driven by Azhar with the disabled lorry which has been stalled by Ah Chan. Two of these persons have made their own fault as what happened on case Ramachandran a/l Mayandy v. Abdul Rahman bin Ambok. First of all‚ Azhar has derived his vehicle along a state road at slightly above the speed limit and his vehicle was equipped with a seatbelt but Azhar was not wearing it at the time of the collision. In addition‚ the impact of the collision
Premium Tort Common law Negligence
4.0 INTRODUCTION Occupiers’ liability generally refers to the duty owed by land owners to those who come onto their land. However‚ the duty imposed on land owners can extend beyond simple land ownership and in some instances the landowners may transfer the duty to others‚ hence the term occupier rather than owner. The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability to arise. Occupiers’ liability is perhaps a distinct form of negligence in that there must
Premium Tort law Tort
Concurrent liability Text [13.45] – [13.65]‚ [13.80] – [13.120] Vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for a tort committed by an employee within the course of employment Stevens v Brodribb sawmilling the existence of control between an employer and employee is not enough to prove a relationship for vicarious liability. Further criteria such as obligation to work‚ hours to work etc is also considered Elazac pty ltd v Sheriff the plaintiff was not an employee but a contractor
Premium Tort law Tort
liability. In Donoghue v Stevenson‚ friends of Mrs. Donoghue bought her a bottle of ginger beer‚ which contained a composed snail and caused Mrs. Donoghue to be ill. Since Mrs. Donoghue did not buy the beer‚ she could not sue under contract law but in tort. The Court held that manufacturer owed duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue and that duty was breached. The rationales behind were that Mrs. Donoghue should have had in their mind as being influenced by their careless behavior. People owe duty of care to
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law