Froom V. Butcher (1996)

Task 4
In this case, although wearing a seat belt is mandatory, it is not counted as a factor determining the responsibilities of the parties. Based on the Maryland Transportation Code, § 22-412.3 - US, it can be seen that seat belts can not be an evidence of the victim negligence, which can reduce the liability of the insurance company or the party causing the damage (General Assembly of Maryland, 2017). For instance, the case of Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 (Witting, 2015). The plaintiff was injured in a car accident due to the defendant's negligence. However, the plaintiff was later found out that he did not wearing seat belts. That leads to a controversy over the division of responsibilities between the parties. In an accident, the driver
The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 provides information about occupier’s duty in section 1 of chapter 3. Section 5 of the chapter claims: “Any duty owed by virtue of this section in respect of a risk may, in an appropriate case, be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to give warning of the danger concerned or to discourage persons from incurring the risk”. In this case, the local government has provide warning sign about the danger and requiring people not to swim at the like. Additionally, patrol was hired to patrol in the public park, which is a large area, in a regular basic. Thus, the local government has been carrying out its duty to people present at the park. In section 6, the law states that “No duty is owed by virtue of this section to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by that person”. Tom’s act of diving into the lake was voluntary and he was fully aware of the danger and injury that he might suffer from. Based on the mentioned principles and the situation, the local government can raise the volenti non-fit injuria defence and succeed in this
Sachno [2001] 261 Va. 278, 541 S.E.2d 902 (Roche, 2016). The Social Security disability claimer has identified the medical malpractice of the physician introduced by the Disability Identification Service. The Supreme Court held that independent contractors such as this doctor were excluded from the protection of sovereign immunity and determined that this doctor was actually an independent contractor. In this case, control is a decision when considering whether the individual is an independent employee or contractor. The doctor conducted the examination at his own office, using his own equipment, the number of tests he performed was not significant compared to his practice volume, the doctor was paid the cost fixed and state agencies have no control over the means and methods by which he examines and inspects. The result is Disability Identification Service is not responsible for the negligence of this