This paper will discuss the hypothetical scenario and case problem 4.4 and its implications on unintentional tort or negligence. It can be found on page 124 of our textbook Business Law Today: Essentials‚ written by Roger LeRoy Miller and Gaylord A. Jentz. As read in the case‚ “Kim went to Ling ’s Market to pick up a few items for dinner. It was a rainy‚ windy day‚ and the wind had blown water through the door of Ling ’s Market each time the door opened. As Kim entered through the door‚ she slipped
Premium Law Tort Tort law
MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Andrew‚ personal injury‚ mental injury‚ accident compensation‚ common law action FACTS: A is a cleaner employed by the University of Ewewhon. He nicks a finger on a broken test tube on the floor of a laboratory. A small spot of blood forms. He is assured the test tube was clean. A becomes extremely fearful that the glass might have been contaminated and that he might contract a serious illness. 1.0 ISSUE: Application of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 Assuming A is
Free Injury Physical trauma Tort
Problem Questions ------------------------------------------------- Question 1 Based on the question‚ the issue in the question is will there be a contract of sale of goods act 1895(SA) under s 1? Hence‚ the law is s 1 where a contract of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property the goods to the buyer for a money consideration based on the case Toby Construction Products Pty Ltd v Computer Bar Sales Pty Ltd. The application is under s1 sale of goods
Premium Contract Tort Law
error has resulted in injury to the claimant medical professionals are faced with an enormous predicament: the desire to do the right thing out of regret; the need to avoid self-embarrassment and disrepute to themselves and ultimately of the NHS. Therefore‚ although both the above reforms mark a fundamental step towards encouraging a culture change within the NHS‚ but they cannot be said to ensure a cultural change
Premium Common law Law Medicine
DEFENCES TO NEGLIGENCE Up to the D to prove that the P’s also did not exercise the same reasonable standard of care for the community CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE * Contributory negligence involves a failure by the P to take reasonable care for his or her own safety that contributes to his or her damage * Apply section 5R – need to show that the P failed to take reasonable care for his or her safety or for the protection of the P’s interest * It is an objective standard that
Premium Tort law Law Duty of care
LAW Torts 1 – Negligence: elements of liability Objectives The law of tort has already been mentioned in other topics in a comparative sense. After studying this topic you should be able to: • discuss the nature of tort law; • explain the various interests protected by tort law; • describe the three essentials of the tort of negligence; • apply the test of reasonable foreseeability in relation to the duty of care; • explain the circumstances in which a duty of
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
NEGLIGENCE DEFINITION A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions‚ but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g.‚ a duty to help victims of one’s previous conduct). OVERVIEW Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person’s conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person’s conduct will result in harm
Premium Tort Common law Tort law
This case is in regards to the tort of negligence‚ with the central issue being causation. With the evidence provided‚ it is necessary to determine whether Vera and PC Webster are owed a duty of care and subsequently have any claims. Firstly‚ the ’but for’ test is to be applied‚ in which the courts ask: ’but for the defendant’s action‚ would the damage have occurred?’ The courts have accepted that drivers automatically owes a duty of care to every other road user ‚ including pedestrians. Jack’s
Premium Law Tort Tort law
duty of care to the plaintiff‚ once it is established that the loss sustained by the plaintiff is one recoverable in negligence. The test of remoteness of damage limits this liability by defining certain types of damage or losses as being irrecoverable as a matter of law. The test is carried out to protect the defendant in breach of their obligations from unusual or unexpected claims. The test for remoteness was for some time considered to be that laid down in Re Polemis and Furness‚ Withy & Co. Ltd
Premium Tort law Duty of care Plaintiff
In the United States‚ approximately 31 million injuries that require a doctor’s care occur in a year. However‚ not all of these injuries meet the qualifications for a lawsuit. On the other hand‚ some of these injuries never make it to trial‚ even though the injured party has a legal claim they could have made. For people who aren’t in the business of practicing law‚ determining whether or not an injury claim has legal merit is difficult. Fortunately‚ the notion of basis can help you determine whether
Premium