True/False Questions 1. Fraud is defined as failure to use reasonable care in the performance of services. Answer: False Difficulty: Easy 2. Most of the burden of affirmative proof is on the defendant under common law. Answer: False Difficulty: Medium 3. The Ultramares v. Touche case held that auditors could be held liable to any foreseen third party for ordinary negligence. Answer: False Difficulty: Medium 4. The Securities
Premium Tort law Auditor's report Legal terms
at gunpoint. This shows that they were negligent in their actions. To prove this‚ plaintiff needs to prove the cause of negligence. There are two causes of negligence the cause in effect and proximate cause. According to Cheeseman‚ H.R Business law: Legal environment‚ online commerce‚ business ethics‚ and international issues (8th ed.). (2013)‚ the defendant’s actions must be the actual cause for the plaintiff’s injuries. We can prove this with “but for” the defendants actions the plaintiff would
Premium Tort Law Tort law
http://www.lawteacher.net/jurisprudence/essays/trespass-to-person.php#ixzz2Zf4KlLwK Wilson V Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440 The plaintiff and the defendant were two schoolboys involved in an incident in a school corridor as the result of which the plaintiff fell and suffered injuries. The plaintiff issued a writ claiming damages and alleging that the defendant had committed a trespass to the person of the plaintiff. In his defence the defendant admitted that he had indulged in horseplay with the plaintiff
Premium Appeal Tort Judgment
Unit 3: McPhillen v. Intoxicated Man Kaplan University PA165: Introduction to Torts Prof: Laurence Mraz June 26‚ 2012 McPhillen v. Intoxicated Man Facts: On the night Leroy McPhillen was a patron of The Bottom’s Up Pub‚ an intoxicated man began shouting obscenities at a woman seated at a table near Mr. McPhillen. As the woman ignored the man’s ranting‚ the man then approached the woman in a threatening manner. Before the man reached the woman‚ Mr. McPhillen invited the man to join
Premium Tort law Tort Battery
14) What torts‚ if any‚ have been committed in the following situation: a) Just as Alice is sitting down on a chair‚ Nathan creeps up from behind and whips the chair from under her. Alice falls to the ground and fractures her arm. TRESPASS TO PERSON BATTERY DEFINITION: The intentional and direct application of force to another person without that person’s consent. ELEMENTS OF BATTERY: iii) Physical contact iii) Physical contact ii) The Defendant’s act was under his control ii) The Defendant’s
Premium Tort law Legal terms Tort
Right or Wrong Scenario Edgar Munoz Kaplan University LS311 January 13‚ 2015 When looking at the following scenario the plaintiff will go after the store due to the employee is the one that ran over the dog. Theory of vicarious liability is considered in order to claim that a business is responsible for its employee’s actions‚ in this case the employee driving the pregnant lady to the hospital (Miller & Jentz‚ 2010‚ p. 457). Responedeat superior generally states that a business will
Premium Tort law Law Tort
doctrine (Miller & Jentz‚ 2012‚ p. 103). To begin with‚ it is easy to rule out the superseding cause defense in this case‚ as an unforeseeable intervening event did not occur. According to Chalat‚ ski law is state law; therefore any accidents that occur in Minnesota would be governed by Minnesota law (2009). Negligence per se can also be dismissed as a defense to negligence as there is no indication that Donahue violated a statute or ordinance that would have otherwise prevented the collision‚ as
Free Common law Law Tort law
Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assume the risk of particular accident? 2. Whether the defendant Allstate coverage was excluded under the terms of its policy or not? 3. Whether the Duplechin’s action was intended tort or negligence? Holding: plaintiff Bourque’s injuries resulted from negligence of defendant Duplechin; Bourque was not guilty of contributory negligence and did not asuume the risk of this particular accident; and defendant Allstate did not prove
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
Were courts to routinely enforce such disclaimers as this‚ I believe that sellers everywhere would quickly adopt liability releases as standard contract which would have the effect of nullifying the entire law of tort‚ and leave unsuspecting consumers at the mercy of the unscrupulous. Also under the federal Magnuson warranty act‚ a seller that provides a limited written warranty is prohibited from disclaiming the provisions of any implied warranty‚ during the
Premium Tort Law Tort law
of the newspaper article titled “Treasurer for Sale” and the decision of the chosen title as well as the poster and three tweets‚ posted about the newspaper article. Reasonableness in the way that Fairfax acted is a necessary consideration in the tort of defamation‚ as such‚ White J was required to consider the actions that Fairfax went through in order to determine the seriousness of the accusation by Hockey. I will argue that White J’s assessment of the situation and the reasonableness
Premium Law Tort Duty of care