Anjum’s solicitors
116 Manchester Road
Bury, Greater Manchester
M89GX
Mr Patrick Patterson
25 Oldham Road
Oldham
OL55BA
Dear Patrick Patterson,
I am writing to explain to you as to whether you were owed a duty of care from the defendant Tristam Turner.
The Caparo v Dickman test will indicate whether you are owed a duty of care. Firstly, your injury was foreseeable as the defendant’s negligence would have resulted in an accident making it foreseeable that the events can cause someone to be paralyzed which would rule them out of work. There was proximity at the time because you were at the scene of the negligence, there was also closeness in space as you were also close to the defendant at the scene of the negligence. To prove whether you were owed a duty of care it has to be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. The defendant was not part of the public service so the floodgate of litigation cannot be open. The defendant was just an ordinary person being negligent. Therefore, the 3 stages have been proven and so you are entitled to a duty of care.
Now that there was a duty of care owed we have to prove whether the defendant breached their duty. The defendant will be compared to a reasonable man who is expected to drive reasonable competently well. The defendant is expected to meet the same standard of care as a reasonable driver. A reasonable driver in the defendant’s positon would not have been driving over the speed limit in the area and also would not have been on their phone as some eye witnesses pointed out. Individual characteristics of the defendant don’t be considered. However, as the defendant was a learner who had just passed his test but it does not make a difference whether the defendant was a learner o...
... middle of paper ...
...d rather than spending the money all at once which would have been kept for a long period of time. There are 2 different damages general and special damages. I advise you to claim for the general damages as you are entitled to this because the injury you have is a lifetime injury which requires medical treatment. This is priceless as nobody knows the price of the cost for you to pay your expenses for the treatment. Now that you are unfortunately unable to walk you are restricted from many things including not being able to walk which you should be compensated for. Therefore, I believe that the pain and suffering and the loss off amenity categories is what you should claim for as the money will ensure you to provide for your family and for the pain and suffering which has been caused to be treated right with the medical treatment. #
Yours sincerely
Anjum’s Solicitors.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
...dividuals from themselves. Moreover, a failure to anticipate the potential negligence of other individuals, particularly where the harms are potentially quite high as is the case in motor vehicle accidents, is probably a failure of the duty of care that one holds for one’s self. A reasonable person would probably anticipate and take precautions against these harms and it is important that the legal system is consistent in the application of the principles of reasonable precautions.
Personal Injury claim cases are commonplace throughout the UK. Unfortunately, accidents resulting in personal injury occur frequently in a variety of environments. Whether an accident in an office, a road traffic accident, an agricultural accident, warehouse accident, or a victim of medical/surgical negligence if you can prove that your injury was clearly not your fault and a person in a position of responsibility acted negligently towards you then you can make a compensation claim.
The claimant sustained injuries soft tissue in nature. She was not required to have any surgeries or miss significant time from work; therefore, her injuries did not pierce New York’s Serious Injury Threshold. Claimant’s PIP claim was resolved in 2015 in the amount of $18,487.58 I have reached a tentative agreement in the amount of $21,000 for Claimant’s
First let us define negligence. “Negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. The risk must be foreseeable, it must be such that a reasonable person performing the same activity would anticipate the risk (Miller, 2013).” For Myra’s claim of negligence to be proved her team must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Our defense will be based on Myra’s assumption of risk as a judge, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence.
This test is significantly relevant as it applies to cases that involve personal injury and/or damage to property. To establish whether or not Jonathan owes a duty of care and on what basis, the courts need to apply three essential questions portrayed by the legal principle in the Caparo test. Firstly, whether or not the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Secondly, whether there was a relationship of proximity between Jonathan and the claimants. Lastly, was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a
Keep in mind that Allana’s past medical expenses shown below are from basically one year of noninvasive treatment. The way her back and neck feels right now, she knows that she will have to pursue further medical care. Based upon Allana’s injuries to date, a conservative amount of $5,000.00 per year for future medical treatment would not be out of line to request from a jury. We summarize the minimum damages in the following
Payouts for general damages, specific damages and future economic loss. General damages are measured on a numerical scale from 1 to 100 and the payout is determined from this. Specific damages include the cost of adaptations to a person’s house and other living necessities that are impacted by their injury. Future economic loss is if they are unable to return to work or their playing career in Alex’s case.
The deadline for this have already passed, because we would have to file a claim 30 days after…………If we had went through with this earlier and we were successful, you would have receive monetary compensation (compensation given to an injured party by a liable party) which is mainly general damages (money you would receive in a successful lawsuit) and special damages (money paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury) which would be more than $500.00 but it depends on mitigation (the action of reducing the seriousness). There is no legal representation necessary for this option but we recommend that you have representative with you if you choose this option.
The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) is the primary legislation used in Victoria that pertains to and governs claims for damages in cases that have resulted in personal injury or death; excluding transport accidents and work related injuries. Section 48 of The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) specifically applies to duty of care; that is, whether or not a person, persons or company etc. had and/or have a legal obligation to an injured party. This piece seeks to evaluate the usefulness of section 48 of The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) in determining whether or not a duty of care exists between parties of varying circumstances, to highlight the Sections shortcomings and to point out which aspects of common law and other relevant legislation supplement the sections inadequacies.
When you're injured at work, you're entitled to workers' compensation. This can help alleviate the responsibility of medical bills from your doctor, bills from procedures like x-rays and MRIs or medications and transportation costs associated with an injury. It can also cover much of the wages you lost. If you're disabled and unable to work in the future, a lump sum of money might be possible.
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...
Following our initial meeting we would be pleased to advise you on your clinical negligence claims. From the particulars taken from such meeting we understand that the initial leg injury occurred while you were on tour with your football team in Oxfordshire during a football game. As a result of your injury you were admitted to the Royal Oak hospital for surgery which was subsequently performed negligently, thus affecting your mobility. You expressed that you also wish us to conduct a case against the Community Health team of Swansea NHS Trust for failing to keep physiotherapy appointments of which you should be having three times a week, and on one occasion going without for almost twenty one and a half weeks;
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of