Introduction In the case of Jacobsen vs. Nike Canada Ltd‚ Mr. Jacobsen an employer of Nike Canada Ltd was seriously injured in a car accident as a result of alcohol consumption while at work. This paper will prove that the defendant (Nike Canada Ltd.) was negligent in all the four elements of “Negligence “ and therefore liable for the injuries. Also it will explain for any legal defense that the employer (Nike Canada Ltd.) might be able to raise. Relevant Facts. Mr. Jacobsen was an employee of Nike Canada
Premium Tort Negligence Law
inexperienced‚ and can cause accidents for the rushed or distracted experienced driver. Safe driving requires that you know your vehicle’s blind spots and that you check them before critical maneuvers. Failure to check blind spots is negligent driving. If another’s negligent driving injured you in an accident‚
Premium Automobile Mobile phone Text messaging
that were in the lobby when the incident happened‚ the amount of loss that the hotel will experience as a result of damage to its goodwill is uncertain and rely more on speculative figures. In addition‚ as we previously saw‚ children cannot be held negligent for their actions the same way as adults. Despite the fact that the children were left unattended‚ Martha Merriweather’s parents could not forecast that Martha and the other children would go play on the balcony. Moreover‚ in the crowded and hectic
Premium Play Learning Playground
Course Project MGMT 597 – Business Law CASE 49.1 NEGLIGANCE: NEW HAVERFORD PARTNERSHIP V. STROOT and WATSON Parties Plaintiff 1 is Elizabeth Stroot‚ a 33 year old graduate student who has suffered from allergies and asthma since childhood. Stroot was a tenant at Haverford apartments. Plaintiff 2 is Joletta Watson‚ friend and roommate of Elizabeth Stroot and a tenant of Haverford apartments from 1990 to 1994. Defendant is New Haverford Partnership‚ the owner of Haverford apartments. Facts
Premium Jury Common law Apartment
Harris Scarfe was in good financial health‚ permitting it to trade when it was virtually insolvent. A suit has been filed against Harris Scarfe’s auditors by the ANZ Bank‚ seeking recovery of at least $70 million and alleging the auditors had been negligent because they failed to uncover the accounting discrepancies and irregular entries in the accounts. Also‚ the former chairman of Harris Scarfe has been charged with a number of offences relating to failure to act honestly‚ dissemination of false information
Premium Debt Finance Stock
John’s theory of the case: The hospital was negligent in failing to maintain a safe and supervised environment in the emergency room waiting room where John was located‚ this failure to provide supervision is the reason he sustained his injury. Issue: Does St. Vincent’s Hospital owe John a duty of care? Rule: The majority of courts have found that premises owners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect their invitees from foreseeable 3rd party attacks. Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson
Premium Tort Law Tort law
ISSUE Is the defendant negligent and liable for injuries to the plaintiff? RULES In negligence‚ a plaintiff must prove: duty; breach duty; causation; and actual injury. Cite A person owes a heightened duty of care where children may be present. Cite ANALYSIS In Aarons v. Peterson‚ the defendant kept a hammer and nails in a toolbox on the floor of his basement. His eleven-year-old son took the hammer and a nail from the toolbox to repair a knock hockey board that he and his nine-year-old
Premium Law Tort Tort law
of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1‚ 2005). Negligent conduct may consist of either an act‚ or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965). Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages; and proximate
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
outcome of this case will be in favor of the defendant. The municipality is negligent and its care of the facility and will award the participant damages in the amount of $30‚000. The badminton player had no knowledge of the prior use of tape on the gym floor and it was not a hazard he would have reasonably expected to occur and thus would not have kept a lookout for such a hazard. She was therefore not contributorily negligent for not inspecting the floor for tape. In this program soccer players
Premium Badminton Association football Tort
aisle at the beginning of the hour and none were aware of the spill on the floor. The aisle was last checked half an hour before Smith fell‚ according to the inspection log. Smith filed a complaint in trial court claiming that the store was negligent with maintaining safety of their store. She is seeking damages for injuries that she suffered from the fall. The store claims that Smith is just as much at fault as they are and that she was not paying attention to where she was walking because
Premium Jury Court Law