case? How do they apply? Does James have a strong case? Why or why not?” Between tort and negligence‚ negligence may have occurred in this case. According to the text negligence is‚ “a type of tort in which an athletic trainer fails to act as a reasonably prudent athletic trainer would under the circumstances.” A medical professional must also be found guilty of
Premium Medicine Tort Law
Foundations of Business Law Assignment 1 Levi Manuel 100102979 Question 1 What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences? First legal issue- Was there a duty of care? In this case there a number of legal issues and the first and foremost of these issues is was there a duty of care? Duty of care‚ as a general rule‚ is that the defendant who owes a duty of care to all persons who it is reasonably foreseeable will suffer loss or damage as a result
Premium Law Tort Negligence
The first action to consider is whether NevR-Fail motors‚ plaintiff‚ would be successful in suing Mr Williams‚ defendant‚ for the tort of deceit. Deceit is the act of purposefully inducing another to act upon a falsified representation of the truth. To constitute as an act of deceit‚ the person receiving this representation must be dependent upon its accuracy and suffer detriment as a result. Sundberg J‚ in the 2005 decision Tresize v National Australian Bank Ltd‚ outlines five elements necessary
Premium Tort Law Common law
1. 4–3. Business Torts. Medtronic‚ Inc.‚ is a medical technology company that competes for customers with St. Jude Medical S.C.‚ Inc. James Hughes worked for Medtronic as a sales manager. His contract prohibited him from working for a competitor for one year after leaving Medtronic. Hughes sought a position as a sales director for St. Jude. St. Jude told Hughes that his contract with Medtronic was unenforceable and offered him a job. Hughes accepted. Medtronic filed a suit‚ alleging wrongful interference
Premium Contract Tort Reasonable person
PRACTICE QUESTION FOR TORTS John worked as a car/truck mechanic for a small business in Darlinghurst Sydney. He was a newly trained mechanic and had just commenced work at a new job last week. The day he started work he was given the task of repairing a truck engine. This required John to disassemble the engine with specialised tools. Mechanics who worked on these large engines were normally given protective head gear to prevent any piece of engine striking them in the face should a piece
Premium Causality Pleading Internal combustion engine
circumstances to manage purposeful tort‚ the court might apply subjective test. Even though the ‘reasonable man’ test is applied equally to everyone‚ the standard of care varies from situations to situations. This is because certain
Premium Law Negligence Duty of care
the special circumstances reasonably demand.” Types of bailment & duties: Non-contractual or Gratuitous Bailment: a bailment where one party provides no consideration‚ or where there is no intention to create a contractual agreement. Under the laws of torts‚ duty of care is applied to gratuitous bailments with no contract. Bailments of value: contractual bailment. The standard of care falls between that of a gratuitous bailment for the benefit of the bailee and those for the benefit of the bailor
Premium Tort law Tort
of damage must also be applied to claims under the Occupiers Liability Acts and also to nuisance claims. Remoteness of damage is often viewed as an additional mechanism of controlling tortious liability. Not every loss will be recoverable in tort law. Originally a defendant was liable for all losses which were a direct consequence of the defendant’s breach of duty: Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Company ltd. [1921]3 KB 560 This was largely considered unfair as a defendant could be liable
Premium Injury Tort law Tort
This problem concerns clinical negligence by omission for failing to diagnose Jane for meningitis and encephalitis. For the hospital to be held vicariously liable for the actions of its doctors‚ Jane must prove misdiagnosis was carried out negligently and directly caused the injury. Lord Bingham said‚ ‘For the purposes of analysis‚ and for the purpose of pleading‚ proving and resolving the claim‚ lawyers find it convenient to break the claim into its constituent elements: the duty‚ the breach‚ the
Premium Law Tort law Tort
TORTS ASSIGNMENT DONALD TRESPASS TO LAND The sub-lease grants Alexis proprietary interests‚ hence she has exclusive possession‚ and locus standi for trespass to her bedroom and communal areas: Cowell v Rosehill Racecourse (1937) 56 CLR 605 ENTERING BEDROOM‚ PLACING PLANTS ON FLOOR Presumably‚ Donald intended (Nickells v Melbourne Corporation (1938) 59 CLR 219) the direct interferences (Southport Corp v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [1954] 2 QB 182 (‘Southport’)) of entering Alexis’s bedroom and placing
Premium Law Tort Property