Hot coffee spill worth cool award McDonald ’s may fork over $2.9 million Denver Post Copyright 1994 Friday‚ August 19‚ 1994 The Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE - A woman‚ who was scalded when her McDonald ’s coffee spilled won a jury award of $2.9 million - or about two days ’ coffee sales for the fast-food chain. Lawyers for Stella Liebeck‚ 81‚ who suffered thirddegree burns in the 1992 incident‚ contended that McDonald ’s coffee was too hot. A state district court jury imposed $2.7 million in
Premium Coffee Damages Burn
awarded. (n) REQUISITES FOR A QUASI-DELICT 1. There must be an act or omission; 2. There must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission; 3. There must be damage caused to another person; 4. There must be a causal connection between the fault or negligence and the damage; and 5. There must have been no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties. DEFENSES GENERALLY AVAILABLE IN TORTS CASES IN RELATION TO THE ELEMENTS OF A QUASI-DELICT: 1. NO NEGLIGENCE
Premium Causality Tort Tort law
States justice system‚ a tort is best defined as an injury or loss that was committed deliberately or negligently by a single person or an entity (Crane). The history of tort law can be traced back to the initial trespass of property or person‚ but it was not until the 18th century that the distinction between intentional and unintentional acts was made (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia). In recent years‚ tort law has become the center of scrutiny through the increase in tort costs‚ insurance liability
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
Tort Scenarios BUS/415 Introduction In week three we were provided with two scenarios and were asked to analyze the tort actions found in both. The first scenario involves fans and participants at a football game; including a father and son‚ and angry fan‚ stadium workers‚ and other spectators. Actions that transpire include the spilling of beer on one fan by another‚ a shove of one fan of anther‚ a fall‚ injury‚ yelling‚ and repercussions of the stated actions. The second scenario we analyzed
Premium Tort
to be a moral being‚ we can engage in actions or act according the maxim or principle in which that maxim could become by our will a universal law. This maxim or principal is applicable to everyone and I could not be of exception. According to the categorical imperative‚ we must comply with certain duties. Kant draws a distinction between perfect duties and imperfect duties. A perfect duty is a maxim‚ which one must always do. An imperfect duty shall not be ignored‚ but it’s possible to be fulfilled
Premium Immanuel Kant Categorical imperative Philosophy
Torts and Damages I . Concept/ Definition The term “Tort” is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system. Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another‚ there being fault or negligence on the part of the defendant‚ who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done
Premium Tort Law
TORT TUTORIAL 7 * Differences between libel and slander. Is the distinction of practical significance? Defamation protects an individuals reputation. Slander refers to a malicious‚ false‚ and defamatory spoken statement or report (non- permanent)‚ while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.(permanent) The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material
Premium Tort Human rights Abuse
History of Tort Law in India and Tort Law in the United States Of America A tort can be known as that area of law wherein the courts provide remedies of permitting a lawsuit for damages in acknowledgement of a private or civil wrong. In India and the United States Of America‚ resemblance in law‚ if any‚ seems to have been inherited from the legal practices as took place in the British era. In India‚ tort law has been only in implementation since towards the end of the British rule. However
Premium Common law Tort
TORTS – INTENTIONAL TORTS PRIMA FACIE Battery is the (1) intentional infliction of (2) a harmful or offensive (3) contact. Offensive includes acts damaging to a “reasonable sense of dignity.” No knowledge of contact is required. (Rationale: protection of personal integrity. Freedom from intentional and unpermitted contact. Offensive harm included b/c of mental injuries). ▪ To have a claim of battery‚ there must be a claim of fault‚ negligence‚ or wrongdoing on the part of
Premium Tort law Tort