TORTS FINAL EXAM OUTLINE INTENTIONAL TORTS 3 2. Battery 3 3. Assault 3 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3 5. False Imprisonment 4 6. Trespass 4 6.1. Trespass to Land 4 6.2. Trespass to Chattels 4 6.3. Conversion 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 7. Consent (Privilege) 5 8. Self Defense (Privilege) 5 8.1. Self-Defense by Force Not Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm 5 8.2. Self-Defense by Force Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm
Premium Tort Common law Law
PA-310 Unit 1 Causes of Action Tort laws are laws that offer remedies to individuals harmed by the unreasonable actions of others. Tort claims usually involve state law and are based on the legal premise that individuals are liable for the consequences of their conduct if it results in injury to others. Tort law only requires 4 elements to be shown. The first one is that the tortfeasor owes the injured party a duty to do something or not to do something; two is that tortfeasor breached the
Premium Tort
The issue is whether the defendant Sykt Jebat can be held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs‚ Sam‚ Jojo and Lan under the law of Occupiers’ Liability. Occupiers’ liability concerns injury caused to a plaintiff as a result of defective condition of the land‚ building and premises. In order to establish occupiers’ liability‚ the occupier must have a sufficient degree of control over the premise. Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) held that “whenever a person has a sufficient
Premium Tort law Standard of care Duty of care
Assignment 1 Constitutional Law (LAW437) Question Habeas Corpus is a remedy to secure personal liberty in Malaysia. Discuss with reference to some decided cases. 1.1 INTRODUCTION The main provision of the Constitution which is relevant is Art. 5(1):”No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.” This most fundamental of all fundamental-rights provisions is given to all persons‚ not just citizens. Art. 5 goes on to provide for the right to habeas
Premium Law Human rights Common law
He would like to claim for such economic loss of $50‚000. In addition‚ Peter expects to claim for medical expenses of $10‚000 and loss of income of $20‚000 for the duration of the injury. REQUIRED: Advise Peter of his legal rights under the law of torts. (Maximum word length: 1‚000 words) Question 2 (10 marks) On Monday‚ Aaron wrote a letter to Ben offering 300 bags of cement at $100 per bag. On Wednesday‚ Ben received the letter of offer from Aaron and posted a reply letter to Aaron in which
Premium Tort Week-day names
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
may apply (repose‚ limitations) 5. Survival action: an action the decedent had before his death that is brought by his executor/administrator on behalf of the estate 6. Felony-Merger Doctrine: CL does not allow recovery for an act that was both a tort and a felony‚ but it is allowed under modern US law 2. Selders v. Armentrout a. Facts: 3 minor children killed in a car accident b/c of D’s negligence b. Issue: How should damages for wrongful death be calculated? c. Damages i. Traditional Rule:
Premium Tort Tort law
September 16‚ 2006 Worksheet 1 EMPLOYMENT TORTS Employer’s Liability 1. Introduction The basis of the liability of an employer for negligence in respect of injury suffered by his employee during the course of the employee’s work is twofold: 1. He may be liable for breach of the personal duty of care which he owes to each employee; 2. He may be vicariously liable for breach by one employee of the duty of care which that employee owes to his fellow employees. The action against
Premium Employment Tort law Tort
INQUEST INTO THE DEATH OF VANESSA ANDERSON. WESTMEAD FILE. NO. 161/2007. Appearances. Gail Furness‚ Counsel‚ instructed by Emma Sullivan‚ Solicitor of the State Crown Solicitors Office‚ Counsel assisting the Coroner. Michael Williams‚ SC‚ instructed by McLaughlin & Riordan for Mr & Mrs Anderson and the family of Vanessa Anderson. Anna Katzmann of Counsel‚ instructed by Leitch Hassan Dent‚ Solicitors for the Royal North Shore Hospital and Doctors Nicole Williams‚ Azizi Bakar‚ Galina Palachevskaia
Premium Head injury
Given that Ms. Shraud was stern with her‚ therefore‚ she was apprehensive and nervous about asking questions. When Ms. New went to scan the letters‚ Ms. New Incidentally made an error and scanned a document in with another patient. That data loaded into the patient appeal records unbeknownst to me. Ms. New was from work on Wednesday‚ upon her return‚ the day progressed with a lot more caseloads as Taryn tasks more audit and appeals cases to Ms. New. Earlier Ms. New went to the bathroom and left
Premium The Work Left-wing politics