Issues Identified: 1. Whether William has an action in common negligence against Edmund. 2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund 3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS 4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS Pleadings: 1. William v Edmund A. Duty of care Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
Tort Law and Cases: A Comparison of Two Cases and Their Potential Frivolity8/22/2010 | Introduction “A tort is a civil wrong resulting in injury to a person or property”; that is brought before a court to compensate the injured party (Bagley & Savage‚ 2010‚ pg 251). In order to prove an intentional tort‚ the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation 4) Injury or Harm. The following tort cases‚ Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck
Premium Tort Tort law
Question 1 What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences? Issue 1--duty of care The tort of negligence to be constituted depend on whether the defendant violate the principle of ‘Duty 0f Care’. Because of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1]‚ ‘Duty 0f Care’ has been established in common law: 1. Defendant whether or not fulfill the duty of care. 2. That defendant whether or not breached that duty. 3. whether Breach the duty of care is the main
Premium Tort law Law Negligence
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
Problem Questions ------------------------------------------------- Question 1 Based on the question‚ the issue in the question is will there be a contract of sale of goods act 1895(SA) under s 1? Hence‚ the law is s 1 where a contract of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property the goods to the buyer for a money consideration based on the case Toby Construction Products Pty Ltd v Computer Bar Sales Pty Ltd. The application is under s1 sale of goods
Premium Contract Tort Law
Torts Assignment 2011 Semester 2 Fred v Ivan- Battery Battery is committed when there is an intentional‚ direct‚ and unlawful contact or without consent to another’s person. Ivan intentionally made unlawful contact with Fred when he thrust his hands into Fred’s pocket. It was apparent that although the contact was with his pants’ pocket rather than directly to the body‚ the contact did involve some element of forces and that ‘the least touching of another in anger is battery’. Hence‚ the element
Premium Tort Negligence
his mining activities. Dana sues John for trespass to land. 1) John claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not conduct any activity that is above ground on Dana’s land. Based on the courseware and your own knowledge of tort law‚ explain why John is correct or incorrect. There is no need to cite any cases for this question. 2) John next claims that he is not liable for trespass to land because he did not intentionally mine under Dana’s land. Please find and cite a single
Premium Tort Tort law
liability. In Donoghue v Stevenson‚ friends of Mrs. Donoghue bought her a bottle of ginger beer‚ which contained a composed snail and caused Mrs. Donoghue to be ill. Since Mrs. Donoghue did not buy the beer‚ she could not sue under contract law but in tort. The Court held that manufacturer owed duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue and that duty was breached. The rationales behind were that Mrs. Donoghue should have had in their mind as being influenced by their careless behavior. People owe duty of care to
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
CASE ONE: LAW OF TORT An accident was occurred by the car driven by Azhar with the disabled lorry which has been stalled by Ah Chan. Two of these persons have made their own fault as what happened on case Ramachandran a/l Mayandy v. Abdul Rahman bin Ambok. First of all‚ Azhar has derived his vehicle along a state road at slightly above the speed limit and his vehicle was equipped with a seatbelt but Azhar was not wearing it at the time of the collision. In addition‚ the impact of the collision
Premium Tort Common law Negligence
The Law of Torts in New Zealand (5th ed‚ Brookers‚ Wellington‚ 2009)‚ Professor Todd suggested that physical injuries “should be understood to mean any condition involving harm to the human body...that is more than merely trifling or fleeting”. The claimant suffered a physical injury which involved the nicking of a finger. There is no dispute that there was
Free Injury Physical trauma Tort