ii. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? iii. Is it fair‚ just and reasonable to impose duty of care? ‘Proximity simply means that the parties must be “sufficiently close” so that it is “reasonably foreseeable” that one party’s negligence would cause loss or damage to the other. Together with this‚ fairness is basically‚ “fair‚ just‚ and reasonable” for one party to owe duty to the other.’ APPLICATION: In the case of Caparo Industry‚ it was held in the House of Lords that ‘a duty
Premium Law Tort Negligence
Contra proferentem rule □ Statutory law restrictions Lecture 5 – Introduction to Law of Torts and Professional Negligence ← Negligence P4~13 □ Basic requirements □ The duty of care □ Breach of Duty □ Res ipsa loquitur □ Causation □ Damage must not be too remote ← General Defences P.29~34 □ Contributory negligence □ Exemption clauses □ Volenti non fit injuria □ Novus Actus Interveniens Company Law Lecture 6 –
Free Common law Law Tort
2013 Professor Gregory Martin In analyzing the tort violation that Alumina‚ Inc may have possibly violated‚ they may be looking at negligence tort. There was definitely a breach of duty but still needs to prove that there is a proximate legal cause of injury from the result of environmental non-compliance of Alumina to be considered a case of negligence. After the violation‚ the company should have developed Enterprise Risk Management Procedures to strategize the company’s activities and prevent
Premium Law Tort Tort law
deficiencies of the Pinto made by Ford Motor Company and the company was knowledgeable of these deficiencies before launching it into the market for consumers. Richard Grimshaw and the surviving family members of Lilly Gray sued Ford Motor Company for negligence and strict liability. In the original verdict Richard Grimshaw was awarded $2‚516‚000 for compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. The Gray’s were awarded $559‚680 in compensatory damages. Because of a motion filed by Ford Motor
Premium Ford Pinto Tort Negligence
1. Justify your position about the importance of the physician-patient and hospital-patient relationships. In a typical physician-patient relationship‚ the physician usually agrees to diagnose and treat the patient according to the standards of accepting medical practice and to continue doing so until the termination of treatment. A patient must have confidence in the competence of their physician and must feel that they can confide in him or her. This is always good‚ when you feel comfortable
Premium Tort Contract Criminal law
Summary Sheet • Malpractice and negligence both concern actions that are results of omission and acting in way that causes injury to patient. Malpractice concerns professional. • Tart is a civil wrong made against a person or property. • Elements of malpractice: duty owed to patient‚ breach of the duty‚ foreseeability‚ causation‚ injury‚ damage. • Nurse Managers are responsible for ensuring that standards of care are current in policy and that nursing staff follow the standards. • Issues
Premium Management Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Law
Neighbor Principle The claim on tort of negligence is based on three elements‚ which are duty of care‚ breach of duty and the breach resulted in Damage. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson‚ regarding the snail in the bottle of ginger beer‚ reached the House of Lord in 1932. Lord Atkin formulated a general principle from it to govern the existence of a duty of care and this was the neighbor principle. In order for a duty of care owed there must be reasonable foresight of harm to persons whom‚ it is
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence
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