Intentional Tort Paper Unit 3 Holly Cord Kaplan University PA165-01 Intentional Torts Black’s Law Dictionary defines assault as “the threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.” This means that the tortfeasor does not have to make physical contact with the victim. The victim only needs to be placed under a reasonable amount of fear that the physical contact will occur. In fact if physical contact does
Premium Management Sociology Contract
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
Intentional Tort is a purposeful act committed by a person against another person that results in harm. In this case it is a nursing assistant harming a patient. An example is a nurse put poison in the patient’s food to inflict harm on them. The case I found was about 16 year old Rachelle Harris. On July 4th‚ 1988 Rachelle tried to commit suicide and was checked into a psychiatric unit of Baptist Hospital. Rachelle was then raped by a nursing assistant on July 16th‚ 1988. Dr. Isabelle L. Ochsner
Premium Rape Sex Suicide
Issues Identified: 1. Whether William has an action in common negligence against Edmund. 2. Whether Sam has action in rescuer’s duty against Edmund 3. Whether William has an action in vicarious liability against TCS 4. Whether Sam has an action in vicarious liability against TCS Pleadings: 1. William v Edmund A. Duty of care Foreseeability – there will be accidents if bus isn’t checked properly and if Edmund doesn’t watch the road. Fair just reasonable. Proximity – safety of William depended
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
possible if ‘prescribed by law’ and ‘necessary to democratic society’ * s.6 HRA 1998 – unlawful for public authority (incl. courts) to act incompatibly to ECHR. * Ovey and White (2006) – Court consistently gives protection to publications/speech‚ it views these as central to the protection of other rights. * Lord Steyn in Reynolds – ECtHR proceeds on fact-specific basis. But nevertheless speech more specifically protected than other forms of expression in law on defamation. Chilling
Premium Tort
Concurrent liability Text [13.45] – [13.65]‚ [13.80] – [13.120] Vicarious liability is the liability of an 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
Premium Tort law Tort
land‚ or some right over or in connection with is nuisance (Winfield and Jolowich on tort) examples are noise‚ fumes‚ dust e.t.c. There are 3 different actions in nuisance but the ones of concern are private‚ public and Rylands and Fletcher (strict liability).the objective of nuisance is to protect an individual’s interest in land. The scenario to be analysed below is to advise Banger of his potential liability in tort since the occupier/ controller of the land (country house)‚ and the creator of the
Premium Tort
Recognizing and Minimizing Tort and Regulatory Risk Plan Karla Ann Lewis Individual Assignment Professor James Eisneman University of Phoenix December 14‚ 2010 Recognizing and Minimizing Tort and Regulatory Risk Plan This regulatory risk plan will recognize the most common torts and risks that are associated business regulation simulation that the learning teams of this course studied. This risk plan will also include how regulatory risks will be identified and analyzed through preventive
Premium Tort Tort law Strict liability
Rev. 1801 Texas Law Review June‚ 1997 W. Page Keeton Symposium on Tort Law MIXED THEORIES OF TORT LAW: AFFIRMING BOTH DETERRENCE AND CORRECTIVE JUSTICE Gary T. Schwartza Copyright (c) 1997 Texas Law Review Association; Gary T. Schwartz Introduction Currently there are two major camps of tort scholars. One understands tort liability as an instrument aimed largely at the goal of deterrence‚ commonly explained within the framework of economics. The other looks at tort law as a way of achieving
Premium Tort Negligence
“Contract law and Tort law are like cheese and biscuits‚ different but complementary” (Holyoak 1983). A contract is an agreement between two parties that is legally enforceable. Contract law outlines the duties and responsibilities to one another‚ what a person can and cannot include in a contract and the remedies for breach of their contractual duties. Elements of a contract are offer‚ acceptance‚ intention to create legal relation‚ consideration‚ capacity of the party to contract and legality
Premium Tort Contract Tort law