SERGIO F. NAGUIAT‚ doing business under the name and style SERGIO F. NAGUIAT ENT.‚ INC.‚ & CLARK FIELD TAXI‚ INC.‚ petitioners‚ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION)‚ NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WORKINGMEN and its members‚ LEONARDO T. GALANG‚ et al.‚ respondents. FACTS: Naguiat is the president and a stockholder of Clark Field Taxi‚ Inc. (CFT). Due to the phase-out of the US bases in the country‚ Clark Air Base was closed and the taxi drivers of CFTI were separated from service.
Premium Common law Tort Legal terms
75 Tex. L. Rev. 1801 Texas Law Review June‚ 1997 W. Page Keeton Symposium on Tort Law MIXED THEORIES OF TORT LAW: AFFIRMING BOTH DETERRENCE AND CORRECTIVE JUSTICE Gary T. Schwartza Copyright (c) 1997 Texas Law Review Association; Gary T. Schwartz Introduction Currently there are two major camps of tort scholars. One understands tort liability as an instrument aimed largely at the goal of deterrence‚ commonly explained within the framework of economics. The other looks at tort law as a way
Premium Tort Negligence
tort law INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE…………………………………………….........4 Buchan v. Ortho Pharmaceutical (Canada) Ltd Hollis v. Dow Corning Cor Tobacco Tort Cases in Ontario (1) THE DUTY OF CARE: GENERAL PRINCIPLES……………………………………………….....6 (a) An Introduction to the Concept of Duty……………………………………………………...6 (i) General Duty of Care Test……………………………………………………………..6 Donoghue v. Stevenson (sets out general neighbour DoC)
Premium Negligence Tort Tort law
Vicarious Liability * Employer’s liability for employee’s wrongdoing committed by employee in course employment- strict liability/ absence of wrongdoing by defendant * Employer will not be liable unless employer-employee relationship/ employee must commit a tort/ must be during course employment * Casual potency important * Must be committed by an employee- employer/employee relationship: * Distinguished between contract of employment/contract for employment * Ready
Premium Tort law Tort Law
THE DUTY OF CARE IN IRISH TORT LAW Author: Anna Louise Hinds‚ B.Corp.Law‚ LL.B (N.U.I.)‚ LL.M (Bruges). Examiner – Legal Framework Formation 1. Introduction The duty of care arises in the tort of negligence‚ a relatively recently emerged tort. Traditionally‚ actions in tort were divided into trespass and trespass on the case‚ or simply ‘case’. Trespass dealt with the situation where the injury was immediate‚ in other words direct and foreseeable. Actions based in case however‚ covered consequential
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562‚ • Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said: "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law‚ you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question‚ Who is my neighbour? … You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which
Premium Duty of care Tort Reasonable person
been breached and s 5R for contributory negligence. * Where both the parties seem to have been negligent‚ it is important to determine who is more at fault and for this purpose we need to use the ‘but for’ test as in the case of Cork v Kirby Maclean [1952] 2 ALL ER 402. * The application of s 5R of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) can be seen from the case Mak Woon King v Wong Chiu [2000] 2 HKLRD 295. Application Applying the three essentials of negligence to find out if Peter has been
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-30642 April 30‚ 1985 PERFECTO S. FLORESCA‚ in his own behalf and on behalf of the minors ROMULO and NESTOR S. FLORESCA; and ERLINDA FLORESCA-GABUYO‚ PEDRO S. FLORESCA‚ JR.‚ CELSO S. FLORESCA‚ MELBA S. FLORESCA‚ JUDITH S. FLORESCA and CARMEN S. FLORESCA; LYDIA CARAMAT VDA. DE MARTINEZ in her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children LINDA‚ ROMEO‚ ANTONIO JEAN and ELY‚ all surnamed Martinez; and DANIEL MARTINEZ and TOMAS
Premium Tort Supreme Court of the United States Law
of care‚ the claimant must prove that the defendant was in breach of duty. ------------------------------------------------- A breach of duty occurs when defendant has not taken care‚ i.e. has been negligent. STANDARD OF CARE Breach of duty in negligence liability is decided by the objective test‚ i.e. the defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person. This test is from the case of: Vaughan V Menlove The defendant’s haystack caught fire due to poor ventilation. Defendant had
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Duty of Care General: Duty is the primary control device which allows the courts to keep liability for negligence within what they regard as acceptable limits and the controversies which have centered around the criteria for the exercise of a duty reflect differences of opinion as to the proper ambit of liability for negligence. Before Donoghue v Stevenson‚ there was no liability for negligence in a case where there is no special relationship between parties. Because in Case of Assault or Battery
Premium Negligence Duty of care Tort