Issues Identified: 1. Whether William has an action in common negligence against Edmund. 2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund 3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS 4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS Pleadings: 1. William v Edmund A. Duty of care Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
refused to move off Assault - intentionally or negligently creating in another an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact - unique in that the damages are for emotional reaction - the apprehension must be for battery (not negligence‚ conversion‚ trespass etc) – Richardson v Rix - doesn’t need an intention to harm - just an intention to create apprehension - apprehension is not fear – a brave person can still expect harm‚ and hence suffer assault - if the plaintiff
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
for the person who commits the tortious act‚ called a tortfeasor. Tort is derived from the latin word “Tortum”. Although crimes may be torts‚ the cause of legal action is not necessarily a crime as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail‚ the plaintiff in the lawsuit must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent
Premium Common law Tort Tort law
others Torts Based on Negligence To recover a plaintiff must show the following four elements Duty Breach of duty Causation Injury. Negligence is an act or omission that results in harm to another to whom the person owes a duty of care A person who intentionally runs over another while driving has committed the intentional tort of battery A person who unintentionally (negligently) runs over another while driving carelessly has committed a tort of battery based on negligence Duty of Care The reasonable
Premium Tort law Tort Negligence
LEGT 5512 LEGAL FOUNDATIONS FOR ACCOUNTANTS SESSION 2‚ 2010 CASE LIST This Case List is not intended to cite every case quoted in lectures and tutorials during the course. Its purpose is to give students a handy citation of a number of leading cases with brief statements to help identify them. This list may not be taken into the Final Examination. 1. 2. 3 Commonwealth v State of Tasmania (1983) 46 ALR 625 Federal and State powers Lee v Knapp [1967] 2 QB 442 “Stop after accident” – golden rule Smith
Premium Tort Contract Invitation to treat
Serious Bodily Harm 6 9. Defense of Others 6 10. Defense of Property 6 11. Necessity (Privilege) 7 12. Discipline (page 93 in casebook) 7 13. Arrest and Crime Prevention (page 95 in casebook) 7 14. Shopkeeper’s Defense 7 NEGLIGENCE 8 15. Negligence 8 16.
Premium Tort Common law Law
NEGLIGENT MISSTATEMENT Main issue: Is the P likely to succeed in an action under the tort of negligence misstatement against the D? Sub-issue 1.1: Duty of Care (NO 3RD PARTY) Law/App: The tort of negligent misstatement was effectively established since the case of (Hedley Byrne v Heller). Law stipulates that there must be a special relationship (an extension of “neighbour principle” established in Donoghue v Stevenson) for between P and D for a DOC to rise in the tort of negligent misstatement:
Premium Negligence Tort Duty of care
Lecture 14 Tort Re Ipsa Loquitur & Defence to Negligence res ipsa loquitur- the facts speak for themselves It means that the plaintiff can prima facie establish negligence where the facts are so obvious that somebody must be negligent otherwise the accident would not have happen. In the common law of negligence‚ the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Latin: the thing speaks for itself) states that the elements of duty of care and breach can be sometimes inferred from the very
Premium Tort law Tort Duty of care
Scheier v. Jersey Joe’s Sports Bar & Grill On February 9th‚ 2002‚ Jodie Scheier slipped and fell in Jersey Joe’s Sports Bar & Grill after leaving her seat at a booth upon being called to collect a door prize. Jodie claimed that there were two steps awkwardly positioned that led to the booth‚ which caused her fall and the subsequent injury of her right index finger. As a hairstylist‚ Jodie relies on the use of her hands and fingers‚ and was unable to work properly because of the injury.
Premium Tort Injury Tort law
tort has three categories namely intentional torts‚ unintentional torts (negligence)‚ and strict liability (Cheeseman‚ 2010). This case is specifically classified as unintentional tort or negligence. The victim could claim damages sought from the offending party (Cheeseman‚ 2010). Since Tim was injured‚ he could bring a civil lawsuit against Danny. This is possible as there are criteria concerning the conduct of negligence. Firstly‚ Danny owed Tim the duty of care. Meaning of duty of care is the
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law