1 Introduction: The Department of Education in Western Australia follows government policy to ensure all those who are of school age attend school. There is a general duty of care related to common law that the teacher has to do all that is reasonable to ensure the health‚ safety and welfare of all those who are associated through the teacher/student relationship during the school day‚ whilst on the school grounds or during school activities/excursions. The purpose of this report is to examine
Premium Tort Education Tort law
of care towards children‚ it is human nature to care for one another‚ children need a degree of attention and caution to avoid negligence which could lead to the harm of the child or others. The younger the child the more vulnerable the child‚ and will need greater duty of care‚ babies and the under 3’s are fully dependent on adults to keep them from harm and negligence. As a children’s practitioner you need the skills to foresee and avoid potential dangers‚ as well as knowing how to cope with
Premium Psychology Tort Negligence
Psychiatric injury is different in kind from economic loss. It has restricted its scope of any duty to avoid causing purely economic loss. It is not always appropriate to impose a duty of care to avoid causing foreseeable economic loss through negligence. Even proximity is unlikely to supply the necessary additional factors. It is an argument that cases of economic loss do not always require a remedy. Cases involving economic loss frequently share certain other features. The damage is often caused
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law
Celia and Mary if one of their employees sexually harassed a customer. This falls under the negligence of an agent which states “in negligence of an agent‚ the principal is responsible because of the employment contract with the agent. In other words‚ if an agent acts negligently while being employed by the principal and is acting within the scope of the employment‚ the principal is also liable for the negligence of the agent‚ even though the principal did nothing negligent personally (Cheeseman‚ 2010
Premium Law Tort Tort law
TORTS ESSAY ONE Scenario: Pilot‚ Dan and Farmer In order to understand this scenario one must grasp the types of torts. We have intentional torts; negligence; and strict liability. (Torts.uslegal.com‚ 2015‚ Types of Torts - Torts. Retrieved 4 May 2015‚ from http://torts.uslegal.com/types-of-torts). An intentional tort is basically a “civil wrong doing” that happens when the “wrong doer” intentionally causes damages to another. (Torts.uslegal.com‚ 2015‚ Types of Torts - Torts. Retrieved
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
tort has three categories namely intentional torts‚ unintentional torts (negligence)‚ and strict liability (Cheeseman‚ 2010). This case is specifically classified as unintentional tort or negligence. The victim could claim damages sought from the offending party (Cheeseman‚ 2010). Since Tim was injured‚ he could bring a civil lawsuit against Danny. This is possible as there are criteria concerning the conduct of negligence. Firstly‚ Danny owed Tim the duty of care. Meaning of duty of care is the
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law
death of Patricia Bandy. The plaintiff‚ executor of Patricia’s estate‚ brought a lawsuit against Lamm and the Premier Corporation Lamm was working for‚ stating that since Lamm was an employee of the Corporation‚ last one as well was liable for his negligence. Lamm answered that he wasn’t negligent. He was incapable of driving because of a sudden stroke. Also Corporation answered that they were not liable because Lamm was not their employee‚ and that he was working for them as independent contractor
Premium Law Appeal Jury
accusations. The tort that followed was negligence of the concession stand worker who was filling Daniel and Ruben’s soft drink order. Though he was asked for diet drinks‚ in his distraction he filled their cups with regular sugary soft drinks. Malik then assaulted Daniel with an unloaded gun. Daniel defended himself by shooting Malik with the weapon he had concealed. Shortly after Daniel went into a diabetic shock which could have been brought about by the negligence of the concession worker and/ or the
Premium Tort Negligence
INTRODUCTION Case of Nocton V Lord Ashburton‚ House of Lords (1914) AC 932 It is an important English tort law case regarding professional negligence and conditions under which a person will be taken to have assumed responsibility for the welfare of another. MATERIAL FACTS In this case a solicitor‚ Mr. Nocton appealed after he was accused of fraud in the High Court. Mr. Nocton had advised his client Lord Ashburton‚ who is the respondent‚ to release part of his mortgage so that he could acquire
Premium Common law Fiduciary Trustee
agent ’s behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent ’s actions (Phelps & Lehman 2005). Most medical malpractice suits are filed as result of negligence (ie‚ a type of tort or civil wrong) - Negligence is defined by what a reasonably prudent person would or would not do in the same or similar circumstance. Negligence can result from the individual medical provider or from some type of agency relationship that exists between two or more health care providers. In general‚ when we
Premium Health care Medicine Tort law