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
The two occupier liability acts are‚ the 1957 act covers liability of occupier for injury suffered by lawful visitors. The Duty of care under the 1957 Act is only for people who have permission to be on the site (invitees or licensees) there is no duty of care for trespassers under this act. The 1984 act offers defence for trespassers as to the lawful visitor’s act of 1957. The occupier of the land owes a duty if he knows or has a rational thought as to if the ground is dangerous. The 1957 Act is
Premium Law Tort Tort law
Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case‚ the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL‚ 2005‚ p70) In addition‚ another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’
Premium Management Marketing German language
failure to 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
Premium Tort Law Duty of care
CHAPTER ONE SUMMARY: A new state law mandates that all employers must prohibit smoking on employer premises‚ and is responsible to enforce this law whether it be an employee‚ customer or client smoking the employer is always required to enforce the law that no one can smoke there. ANALYSIS/ PERSONAL COMMENTARY: This is substantive law as it is defining the liability that the employer has to keep employees/clients/customers from smoking on the premises of their place of business. And I think
Premium Law United States Constitution Common law
Question 1: Issue The issue of this question is whether Samuel willingly entered into a legitimate sale of goods contract with the shop in Orchard Road. Rule of Law The law on this issue is found in the common law and under stature law. In Preston Corporation Sdn Bhd v Edward Leong (1982)‚ an offer was defined as a willingness to be bound by the terms of an agreement. Therefore‚ it is clearly stated that Samuel is willingly and has agreed to enter into a contract by signing on a receipt
Premium Contract Tort 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
Torts Notes – Negligence Contents 1 Preamble 2 1.1 Concurrent Wrongdoers 2 1.2 Death 2 1.3 Apologists 2 1.4 Vicarious liability/non-delegable duties 3 2 Duty of care 5 2.1 Immunities 5 2.2 Omissions/failure to control third party 6 2.3 Atypical Plaintiffs 6 2.4 Unborn Child 6 2.5 Mental Harm/Nervous Shock 7 2.6 Statutory Authorities 8 2.7 Pure Economic Loss/Negligent Misstatement 11 3 Breach of Duty 12 3.1 Section 5C 12 3.2 Obvious risks 12 4 Causation 13 4.1 Res ipsa loquitur
Premium Tort law Tort Negligence
Tutorial letter 202/1/2014 The Educator as Leader Manager and Administrator Department of Educational Leadership and Management This tutorial letter contains important information about your module. EDLHODM Semester 1 2 CONTENTS Page no 1 SECTION B: INTRODUCTION TO SOUTH AFRICAN EDUCATION LAW…………………………..….3 2 EXAMINATION PAPER: SECTION B: INTRODUCTION TO SOUTH AFRICAN EDUCATION LAW ...6 3 MEMORANDUM OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDED IN THE STUDY GUIDE…………………..…………......8 4 A FINAL
Premium Law Common law Tort
QUICK FACTS DUTY OF CARE & NEGLIGENCE Both terms used in COMMON LAW. Duty of Care Exists between two individuals where there is an obligation on one party not to harm the other Duty is personal - owed by one individual to another individual e.g. an employer owes a DOC to each one of his employees There are several examples of where there is a recognised DOC - Employer/Employee; Doctor/Patient; Parent/Child; Teacher/Pupil The standard of care which must be exercised by an employer is
Premium Tort Law Tort law