Liability * Employer’s liability for employee’s wrongdoing committed by employee in course employment- strict liability/ absence of wrongdoing by defendant * Employer will not be liable unless employer-employee relationship/ employee must commit a tort/ must be during course employment * Casual potency important * Must be committed by an employee- employer/employee relationship: * Distinguished between contract of employment/contract for employment * Ready Mixed Concrete (South
Premium Tort law Tort Law
Tort Law and Cases: A Comparison of Two Cases and Their Potential Frivolity8/22/2010 | Introduction “A tort is a civil wrong resulting in injury to a person or property”; that is brought before a court to compensate the injured party (Bagley & Savage‚ 2010‚ pg 251). In order to prove an intentional tort‚ the following conditions must be met: 1) Intent 2) Voluntary act by the defendant 3) Causation 4) Injury or Harm. The following tort cases‚ Pearson v. Chung and Liebeck
Premium Tort Tort law
Torts and Damages I . Concept/ Definition The term “Tort” is of Anglo-American law-common law which is broader in scope than the Spanish-Phil concept which is limited to negligence while the former includes international or criminal acts. Torts in Philippine law is the blending of common-law and civil law system. Quasi Delict refers to acts or omissions which cause damage to another‚ there being fault or negligence on the part of the defendant‚ who is obliged by law to pay for the damages done
Premium Tort Law
of torts‚ and more specifically the tort of negligence. It discusses cases and judgements related to it. It concludes by looking at the elements of negligence and their meanings. THE LAW OF TORTS A tort is basically a civil wrong. A civil wrong is an act‚ intentional or otherwise‚ the consequences of which include‚ but are not limited to damage to life or property‚ injury to a person‚ emotional or mental trauma‚ loss in reputation‚ etc. The injured party
Premium Common law Tort Contract
Re: Intentional torts‚ negligence‚ and strict liability ASSIGNMENT Explain the general differences between intentional torts‚ negligence‚ and strict liability. Additionally‚ explain the elements of intentional torts and negligence and provide working examples to illustrate each. FACTS 1. Intentional torts are actions with the purpose or intention to injure another person or that person’s property. The person inflicting the harm is called a tortfeasor. Intentional torts
Premium Tort Tort law Common law
employer for a tort committed by an employee within the course of employment Stevens v Brodribb sawmilling the existence of control between an employer and employee is not enough to prove a relationship for vicarious liability. Further criteria such as obligation to work‚ hours to work etc is also considered Elazac pty ltd v Sheriff the plaintiff was not an employee but a contractor. He considered himself to be self-employed also everything he did in his work showed that he was an independent
Premium Tort law Tort
LGST101: Business Law AY 2011-2012‚ Term 1 Group 8 Project Written Analysis Tort of Negligence Prepared for: Professor Melvyn Chew Written By: Jamie Lim Jia Qi (#12) Joel Koh Yong Kiat (#14) Low Hwan Hong (#23) Oh Zhan Yuan (#24) Ong Hui Ming Maria Nicolette (#25) G12 Throughout the course of this report‚ to determine if the plaintiff is owed a duty of care in negligence‚ we will adhere by the Singapore single test of negligence laid out in the case of Spandeck Engineering
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
INTRODUCTION “Assault” and “battery” in the context of tort law are viewed as separate offences unlike in viewpoint of criminal law where the two are typically components of a single offence. In this essay‚ the writer will discuss ‘assault and battery as understood in tort law. To properly exhaust these two torts‚ it is best to evaluate them separately according to their definitions and the help of their related case laws. Assault and battery are intentional torts meaning that in these two offences‚ the tortfeasor
Premium Tort Battery
ARTICLE 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury‚ he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory‚ the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care‚ the plaintiff may recover damages‚ but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n) REQUISITES FOR A QUASI-DELICT 1. There must be an act or omission; 2. There must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission;
Premium Causality Tort Tort law
4.0 INTRODUCTION Occupiers’ liability generally refers to the duty owed by land owners to those who come onto their land. However‚ the duty imposed on land owners can extend beyond simple land ownership and in some instances the landowners may transfer the duty to others‚ hence the term occupier rather than owner. The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability to arise. Occupiers’ liability is perhaps a distinct form of negligence in that there must
Premium Tort law Tort