unnecessary treatments over 53 consultations at a cost of $73‚640 which was borne by the workplace insurer. The appellant litigated against the dentist in the Supreme Court for negligence and trespass to person‚ seeking exemplary damages. However‚ the trial judge found in favour of the defendant who admitted liability for negligence only and applied the Civil Liability Act‚ awarding damages totalling $1‚388‚615.20 and no exemplary damages were given. This appeal was made with the admission that the dentist
Free Common law Law Tort
that have not been arisen from the contractual duties. Under tort law‚ whether it is an intentional act or accident‚ the injured victim (plaintiff) may be capable to recover damages from the person that liable for the harmed caused (defendant). Negligence is the most significant and developed category of tort in terms of money and varied of cases involved. It believes that the plaintiff should bear their own adversities unless there is a proof shows that the defendant owes of duty to comply with
Premium Tort Negligence Duty of care
GLENDALE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-672 Plaintiff: Michael Barnes Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO” Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010 Background Facts: Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store
Premium Meaning of life Law Sodium
"merchantable‚" meaning they work and are useable as normally expected by consumers. Implied warranty of merchantability: when a merchant sells or leases a product who is in the business of that particular product implies warranty of merchantability. Negligence of the manufacturer/seller A negligent manufacture case focuses on the actual product. The key question is whether the product that caused injury was
Premium Tort Negligence Implied warranty
IRAC Analysis Legal issues in the workplace Mariana Martiskova July 20‚ 2012 ISSUE: Is the GTE South‚ Inc. guilty of negligance per se towards Laura Baldwin on the grounds of unlawful telephone booth placement in rights-of-way ? RULE : Negligence per se may occur if any individual violates a statute or an ordinance providing for a criminal penalty and that violation causes another to be injured. The injured person must prove : 1. that statute clearly sets out the standard frame in sense
Premium Law Tort Tort law
level of justice in these types of cases. Although tort law does give greedy people a loophole to bring up frivolous cases and receive unnecessary compensation‚ overall the general idea is good. The primary issue within this case would be the negligence of McDonald’s. By serving coffee to their customers at the high temperature of 180+ degrees which could cause serious 3rd degree burns is not only irresponsible but extremely dangerous. The fact McDonald’s had already received over 700 complaints
Premium Law Negligence Tort
Law: The Ethical‚ Global‚ and E-Commerce Environment Cornell Law School III. History of Product Liability 1. Denis W. Stearns IV. Product Liability Claims 1. Manufacturing Defects 2. Design Defects 3. Negligence 4. Strict tort Liability 5. Breach
Premium Law Tort Tort law
of care‚ the claimant must prove that the defendant was in breach of duty. ------------------------------------------------- A breach of duty occurs when defendant has not taken care‚ i.e. has been negligent. STANDARD OF CARE Breach of duty in negligence liability is decided by the objective test‚ i.e. the defendant is expected to meet the standard of a reasonable person. This test is from the case of: Vaughan V Menlove The defendant’s haystack caught fire due to poor ventilation. Defendant had
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
for” test‚ it was shown that the watchman who died from arsenic poisoning would have died‚ if not later‚ even with the intervention of the doctor on duty at the defendant hospital. Therefore‚ the question would the watchman have died but for the negligence of the doctor of the defendant hospital is answered negatively. Although this test is the simplest test and should be tried first before any others‚ it cannot solve all problems. This test does not function well when there are issues with scientific
Premium Tort Negligence Law
Neglegance 2. Intentional 3. Strict product liability Standard of care froms 1. malfeasance 2. misfeance 3. nomfeance degrees ordinary gross negligence- …what should have been done what would ordinary prudent person have done in that situation? What would Jesus do? p.34 chart element of negligence 1. duty to care-legal obligation of care‚ performance‚ or observance imposed on one to safeguard the rights of others.. Case page 34 bonx county 2. breach of the
Premium Tort law Tort Duty of care