Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence. Daria and her lover, Tom, were crossing the road on a pedestrian crossing when Tom was hit and killed by a car being negligently driven by Steve. The car missed Daria by inches. Since the incident Daria has had frequent nightmares and has been unable to return to work. Harry, a policeman patrolling the area, witnessed the incident and went to try to help Tom, but quickly realised that Tom was already dead. This was Harry’s first day back at work following six months recovering from psychiatric illness caused by the distressing nature of his job. As a result of seeing Tom’s injuries Harry has now suffered a return of the psychiatric damage which now appears permanent. Samira, a civilian worker in police traffic control, was watching a TV monitor which showed the road as the incident occurred. Samira recognised Tom as her husband whom she had not seen since the day, six months before, when he had left her and gone to live with Daria. Samira had always believed that, one day, he would return to her. She has suffered post traumatic stress disorder since the incident. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti... ... middle of paper ... ...rameters and all the aspects of the law that appear in our given scenario we can safely say that any claim that is being made by Tom’s representative by Daria and Samira on the grounds of negligence – breach of duty of care and psychiatric injury would be successful and that even though Harry suffered psychiatric injury his claim won’t be successful since he doesn’t fulfill the necessary parameters in order to make a successful claim. Bibliography Neal Geach, Question & Answer Tort Law, Pearson Law of Tort, Module Handout. Cases Frances Quinn, Tort Law, Pearson, first edition, pp 34-35 Caparo v Dickman (1990) 2 A.C. 605 Page v Smith [1996] 1 A.C. 155 Bourhill v Young [1943] A.C. 92 Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 A.C. 310 Hinz v Berry [1970] 1 All E.R. 1084 White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [1999] 2 A.C.455
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
On Thursday, 11/12/2015, at 17:01 hours, I, Deputy Stacy Stark #1815 was dispatched to a domestic disturbance in progress located at 66 Paper Lane, Murphysboro, IL 62966. It was reported that a 15 year old female juvenile was busting out windows on her mother’s vehicle. Deputy Sergeant Ken Lindsey #2406 and Deputy John Huffman #2903 responded as well.
This can’t be happening thought Bill. Man I’m in so much trouble, there’s no way I can get out of it. I’m stuck. Bill had just wrecked his parent’s BMW in an accident, and they had no idea that the expensive car was even missing from the garage. And a terrible thing had happened as a result of the crash. A young woman lay dead in the passenger side of the vehicle, swarmed by medics. Bill had escaped injury, but as his body was still at the crash site, his mind wasn’t. He was in total shock at what had happened. If I only left the car in the garage and didn’t try to “borrow” it, Lisa might still be alive….Bill tried to imagine that it wasn’t real, that he was in his bed dreaming, but no, he was responsible for the destruction of his parents’ car and his the death of his girlfriend. It was as if his mind wasn’t registering, as if it was in some far away place. He just couldn’t come to grips with what had happened. This is a classic example of severe shock. The event that took place was so strong that the mind has trouble working. While in Bill’s case where he had indeed had an accident, the realism of the situation dwarfs the mind as if a small comet hurtled towards a blazing sun. But this is just one aspect of realism. The whole of realism is made up of the fact that our lives, the world, the universe, it’s all real. And as much as our minds would want to deny it, everything will stay real, and for most people they just make the best of it. But for the rest of the people, they invent new ways to get around the feeling that a wall has been placed in their path. All this goes to say that people must be original and “keep it real” to survive the physical and mental fatigue life throws at them and also that everything will always be real and we must be in touch with our minds to harvest the realness.
The couple, Mel states, was driving down the interstate when an intoxicated nineteen-year-old “plowed his dad’s pickup truck” into the couple’s camper (146). Though the driver was pronounced dead on arrival, the couple survived. They were, however, in critical condition. During their recovery, Mel states, the man was depressed even after learning that his wife was safe.
Katie tries calling her daughter Polly to see if it was her but polly is perfectly fine at college. “Pol? Honey? Are you alright?”pg.796. She then tries to call her mother to see if it was her, Katie knows that whoever called is apart of her family. Katie hangs up and calls her sister Dawn but she doesn't pick up. Katie's husband Bill drives her out to Dawn’s to see if she is okay, She turns out to be sleeping on the couch with the music blaring. That night Bill dies of a heart attack while watching a movie based on his book. Five years later Katie remarries, she’s down stairs and bill’s movie comes on. She falls and turns off the television, she hears the phone buzzing then realized something. The women she heard over the phone five years ago was herself saying take Bill to the hospital “Take...please take...t-t-” P.807.
The story began with the picture of Sunday's night after church, at eleven o'clock in the evening. Delia was still working. As a washwoman, Monday's morning was important for her because she would return all the clean clothes and earn her money. That money was to pay for the house, her food, and the pony which Sykes, her husband, had gone with. After 15 years of marriage, Delia had lost all hopes in Sykes. The countless beatings and painful acts of Sykes had brought her to her limit. Sykes had gotten home, and as usual, the fight happened between two former lovers. Sykes's appearance by a scary scene was like the ev...
Clearly outline the elements of gross negligence manslaughter. Use relevant case law to illustrate your points. (30%)
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
However, in order to prove vicarious liability, we have to show that his negligence was done in the course of his employment and not as a “frolic of his own” .
Madge is frightened. Up ahead, there is an accident where a motorcycle is down and a familiar face, Bob the gas filling attendant, is limping across the road. Bob asks Madge to help him stand the motorcycle back up. The reader may think that Madge has a way out of the situation with Bob’s help. The man thought to be Eunice, now tells Madge that he is actually Mr. Tabor. He says he is going to go help. Then Madge feels a sign of relief. The author describes the scene. Mr. Tabor tells Madge to drive away, and she does. She hears a noise, and the reader knows that Bob got shot. Madge drives off as quick as she can to her husband. She is so frightened that she couldn’t tell him until the next day what she experienced. They returned to town. Madge’s husband said that Mr. Tabor was at his desk at the mill, and Bob, the gas attendant, was not at the filling station. Bob told his boss the night before that he was leaving. Madge’s husband returns to tell Madge that nothing happened, but Madge and the readers know what happened. The author uses suspense to keep the reader’s attention and interest. In the end, Mr. Tabor is the one who helped take out the women killer, but the readers may have thought that he
The liability of a doctor arises not when the patient suffers injury but when the injury results due to the conduct of the doctor, which was below reasonable care. Hence once there exist a duty which has to be established by the patient, then the next step is to prove breach of such duty and the causation.
Did J owes a duty of care to TPS? Was he in breach of a proper standard of care? If yes, does the loss suffered link to the negligent action?
It all began the night my best friend Daisy killed herself. Not to mention her five-year-old twin brother and sister seconds before. She butchered them with a kitchen knife, before turning the blade on herself. All three of them were left to be found by their mother. I was uncontrollably hysterical when I found out by an inevitably shaken-up father to Daisy, who was reluctant to playing the bearer of bad news; excruc...
The prosecution will argue that the act of giving Daniel the insulin had a ‘substantial causal effect’ because Daniel would not have been in that situation if Jessica had not administrated the incorrect medication. Daneil’s death is a ‘natural consequence’ of Jesicca’s conduct as it is ‘reasonably foreseeable’ that providing incorrect medication will amount to harm. The defence may argue Novus Actus Intervenes because Robert had conducted an omission, however the omission was not abnormal occurrence, unreasonable conduct of the accused trying to escape, actions of the victim, action of a third party or unusual medical treatment therefore the chain of causation is not broken. If however, Robert’s actions are taken into account Jessica would still be liable because ‘the original wound is still operating