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
1 Task – 1 1.1 Importance of Essential Elements of Contract Contract represents the instrument to enforce promises. Not all statements amount to enforceable promises or contracts. To enforce statements there are a number of elements which courts look for and these mainly include the presence of offer‚ its communication‚ its unconditional acceptance and communication of the acceptance. Once this has taken place then the element of consideration gives the badge of enforceability to the contract and
Premium Contract
found negligent by having a water spill on the floor. However‚ the factors of the time frame‚ that the spill was open and obvious‚ and that Trina did not know of the spill could remove her negligence. Additionally‚ Karen Logan was contributorily negligent here‚ absolving Trina of any negligence claim. Negligence To be negligent‚ the condition of defendant’s property must present an unreasonable risk of harm to people on the property. Here‚ the puddle of water in the middle of the floor was not
Premium Tort law Common law Tort
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
In Defense of Negligence Crystal J. Bolden Professor Nekia S. Hackworth Elmo Puppeteer Sued over Sexual Allegations November 28‚ 2012 Relevant Facts in the case of Kevin Clash 1 According to New York Daily News‚ November 2012 the voice behind the little red furry friend Elmo from “Sesame Street” is being sued by three different accusers for inappropriate sexual conduct towards under aged kids. The first accuser came fourth stating that he had sexual relations with Kevin
Free Human sexual behavior Sexual intercourse Child sexual abuse
I. CASE 4.28: Contributory Negligence Facts: • Pride Accountants has been the auditor of Skyhign Ltd for the last five years. • The audited was made for the year ended 30 June 2009‚ where Pride Accountants issued an unqualified opinion of the financial reports. • Skyhigh is a largest client of Pride Accountants. • They have a good working relationship. • In the past‚ audits of Skyhigh have run smoothly and its financial reports have always been unqualified. • The audited was made for the
Premium Auditor's report Financial statements Balance sheet
Wayne is walking along a footpath near a golf course. He gets struck in the eye with a golf ball. There were no barriers between the golf course and the footpath. The place where Wayne was hit about 100m from a tee (a tee is where players drive the golf ball). Wayne can no longer work as a surgeon and he brings wants to bring legal proceedings against the golf course. REQUIRED Advise Wayne whether he will be successful in legal proceedings against the golf club? ISSUE Has the golf club breached
Premium Duty of care Golf Standard of care
the facts of this case‚ using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) The facts of the case found in LexisNexis is: a child was burnt‚ not determined if the coffee was served scolding hot or not‚ no breach of warranty‚ and no negligence of emotional damage. 4. According to the case‚ why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress‚ and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) The court did approve punitive damages but Burger King had nothing to do with
Premium Negligence Product liability Tort
Tort of negligence Legal obligation on persons to exercise reasonable care not to cause harm to others in specified circumstances. In order to establish liability for the Tort‚ the victim has to show: 1. He is owned a duty of care by the tortfeasor; 2. The tortfeasor has beached that duty of care AND 3. The victim has suffered resulting damage Duty of care: The “Neighbor Principle” to establish whether or not a duty of care is owed in the context of the Tort of negligence. First one has to establish
Premium Contract Tort
Legal issues September 30‚ 2013 Case of Negligence 1. During the day‚ duct tape had been used on the floor near the boundary lines of a badminton court. In the evening‚ a participant playing badminton caught her shoe on the tape and suffered a torn meniscus in her knee. Arthroscopic surgery was required and a lengthy convalescence ensued. The municipality was responsible for cleaning the community center‚ including the gym‚ and knew that the tape had been placed on the floor during the day
Premium Badminton Association football Tort