consequently developed a mental illness‚ suffering anxiety and depression‚ and had to take six months’ leave from work. REQUIRED Advise Jim and Betty as to their common law rights. SUGGESTED ANSWER This problem deals with the tort of ordinary negligence‚ concerning whether InterUrban is liable in damages to Jim and Betty. Jim’s claim: To prove InterUrban was negligent‚ Jim must‚ on a balance of probabilities‚ show the following: 1) a duty of care was owed to him. Under Donoghue v Stevenson
Premium Tort law Tort Duty of care
The dispute that occurred among the individuals had caused potential trespass to person claims. Trespass to person tort is involved in intentional‚ direct interference to claimants and is branched into three elements: assault‚ battery and false imprisonment. Phil could claim assault against Grant due to him coming at him in an aggressive manner and for throwing a bottle at him. However Phil could also possibly be prosecuted for Battery‚ from Grant’s girlfriend‚ because of the unlawful kiss he enforced
Premium Negligence Tort Tort law
factual causation scope of liability Defences: Contributory negligence Remedies: Compensatory damages Consequential damage Lost opportunity Fraudulent misrepresentation (deceit) = A false representation made by one‚ who either has knowledge of its falsity‚ or is reckless as to its truth‚ with the intention that the Pl should act on it‚ and which causes damage as a result = A separate tort (and not a negligence action) Representation of Fact Oral‚ written‚ conduct
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law
Negligent Tort Deaundra Chatman BUS670: Legal Environment (MFH1446A) Instructor: Leah Westerman Date: January 15‚ 2015 Negligent Tort Manufacturing industries are in the business of making products for the consumer industry‚ products that supposed to be sustainable and have the potential to improve the lives of the people using them. In most cases‚ they get it right; they make a product that does not have any problems when it comes to using it. However‚ in some situations‚ there happens
Premium Law Tort Tort law
Defenses to Negligence Eleven-year-old Neal Peterson collided into forty-three-year-old David Donahue on a Minnesota ski slope in February of 2000. Peterson was headed down the slope at a fast speed when he struck Donahue who was travelling at a slow speed across the slope toward the parking lot. In seeking compensation for his injuries‚ Peterson filed suit against Donahue alleging negligence. As both skiers claim to be experienced‚ understand the associated risks and collisions involved
Free Common law Law Tort law
defenses may be available to BUGusa‚ Inc.? Explain your answer. The tort of negligence applies in this scenario. Negligence is described as a party who fails to act reasonably‚ even when the act is not intentionally‚ or it does not intend for harm to occur (Melvin‚ 2011). In this scenario BUGusa did not have direct intentions for the vendors‚ and its employees to get attacked and robbed‚ however; the company’s negligence to act reasonably and responsibly made it easier for the delinquents to attack
Premium Tort Law Tort law
GLENDALE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-672 Plaintiff: Michael Barnes Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO” Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010 Background Facts: Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store
Premium Meaning of life Law Sodium
to become tired‚ irritated and inefficient. There was no evidence of any similar device in use on two-man trams anywhere in the world. Will the plaintiff succeed in his negligence claim? Explain your reasoning. Answer: In this case‚ the plaintiff claimed negligence against the Sydney tramway authorities. In order for a negligence to be established‚ the authorities have to be proved owned a duty of care to the plaintiff. In this circumstance‚ it refer to the safety of tramway passengers. Whereas
Premium Tort law Tram accident Accident
arising out of negligence‚ one cannot file a case against the mis-doer. In certain cases‚ doctors may indulge in unfair behavior on purpose. They may issue wrong prescriptions‚ make inaccurate diagnosis‚ refuse a case without consideration‚ etc.‚ for personal gains. This is an act of crime and not negligence. Hence‚ if the doctor is guilty of intentional malpractice‚ then the case is treated under criminal prosecution. Common terminologies under Medical Malpractice LawContributory Negligence - Contributory
Premium Law Physician Negligence
infringing on another’s legal rights.for there to be a case under tort NEGLIGENCE: This is a legal concept that is usually used to acquire compensation for injuries suffered or accidents met. It is a civil wrong actionable under tort law. Negligence involves behaving in a manner that lacks the legality of protecting other people against foreseeable risks. Under common law for there to be a case under negligence then the following elements must be satisfied. * Duty of care * Breach
Premium Law Tort Common law