HA2022 BUSINESS LAW RESEARCH ASSIGNMENT TRIMESTER 2‚ 2012 DUE DATE: - MONDAY 24ST SEPTEMBER 2012 SUBMITTED BY: - ANUP SINGH RAIMAJHI (WMT2060) Question 1 A Sydney tramway passenger was injured in collision with another tram‚ which occurred after the driver collapsed at the controls. The plaintiff argued that the collision could have been avoided if the tramway authority had fitted the tram with system known as ‘dead
Premium Tort law Tort
significance of providing this sample mid-term is NOT substantive (that is‚ the particular questions that are asked‚ or the scope of the exam) – it is to provide students with a sense of the structure/format/style of this exam GNG4170 – Engineering and the Law Mid-term: 60 marks‚ 2 hrs Wednesday‚ June 23‚ 2010 Q1: True/False plus a brief explanation – if ‘true’‚ your ‘explanation’ should add one further idea/principle related to the sentence [1 mark for each of T/F and related explanation x 5 = 10 marks]
Premium Tort Contract Common law
The legal concept of vicarious liability and the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior occurs when the employee commits a tort or civil wrong within the scope of employment and the employer is held liable although the master may have done nothing wrong( Regan 2002). Physicians and other healthcare providers need to be aware of this doctrine in the supervision of their staff and their day-to-day medical practice. The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer
Premium Health care Medicine Tort law
TPL 2 Research Assignment Introduction Traditionally the law of torts in Australia and many other common law countries (e.g. England‚ Canada) have been reluctant to impose upon bystanders a general duty to aid the proverbial baby drowning in a puddle of water‚ ’ though there have been several exceptions to the general rule which the courts have distinguished‚ usually where some sort of prior relationship exists between the parties. Protagonists of a duty to rescue ’ tend to base their
Premium Common law Tort Morality
Q1: This case involves a number of claims in tort; for the purposes of the current part of the course we will be concentrating on the claim for “false imprisonment” (sometimes also called “wrongful detention”). (We will consider the case again in semester 2 when we examine the tort of “negligence”.) By reviewing the headnote‚ how many different torts were being sued for? List them. A: - Tort of Misfeasance in Public Office - Tort of Negligence - Tort of False Imprisonment Q2: Using the headnote
Premium Law Tort Negligence
The case presented dictates eight parties involved. Those eight parties are the marina‚ Miss Behavin’s ship keeper‚ Odd A Sea’s ship keeper‚ Sea Duction‚ U.S. Coast Guard‚ the Ice Harbor Bridge operator‚ two injured civilians‚ and all damaged buildings. Evidence was presented to determine who has what claims. The ship Miss Behavin was not properly anchored. The marina’s mooring shore anchor for the ship Miss Behavin was improperly constructed and maintained. Therefore‚ once the ice caused immense
Premium Tort Law United States
INTRODUCTION Case of Nocton V Lord Ashburton‚ House of Lords (1914) AC 932 It is an important English tort law case regarding professional negligence and conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another. MATERIAL FACTS In this case a solicitor‚ Mr. Nocton appealed after he was accused of fraud in the High Court. Mr. Nocton had advised his client Lord Ashburton‚ who is the respondent‚ to release part of his mortgage so that he could acquire
Premium Common law Fiduciary Trustee
Question 1: How has the range of duty negligence been developed since Donoghue v Stevenson? Use case law in your answer. It is often difficult to set down a single test to determine when a duty of care is owed to the claimant. Nevertheless‚ this does not mean that it is never clear when a duty of care is owed. For example‚ an employer owes his employees a duty of care not to cause them foreseeable‚ physical and psychiatric injury. A similar duty is owed to the road users by a driver and to patients
Premium Law Tort Negligence
PM Vicarious Liability is where one person is held liable for the torts of another. This is usually where an employer is liable for the torts of employee. For the employer to be liable: i) A tort‚ (such as negligence‚ battery or even in breach of statutory duty (Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas’s NHS Trust 2007)) ii) committed by his employee‚ iii) during the course of employment. • Original defendant (employee) must be liable in tort first Prepared by S. M. Akash www.facebook.com/smakash111 The Tests
Premium Tort law Strict liability Negligence
Identify potential tort risks that arise in the business context Many organizations contend with tort liability and management in the day-to-day business. The proper management and protective measures to minimize the organizations spotlight tort liability has become a key to efficient operating a business. Employers usually speak to attorneys when dealing with certain issues. The textbook revealed that the three categories of torts are intentional torts‚ unintentional torts and strict liability
Premium Tort Risk management Management