As Judge Learned Hand said, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right...”. Tort law is about compensation for the damage suffered. Nevertheless, it is also about balancing freedom and protection and there are two main ways to balance it. First of all, there is fault liability, which asks a question, did someone exercise a sufficient care. On the other hand, there is strict liability, in which, even though someone exercised sufficient care, can still be liable. Nevertheless, each jurisdiction tackles this problem in a different way. For the purpose of this paper, two jurisdictions which are most distinctive will be chosen, and that is French and English jurisdiction. In line with that, English law stems …show more content…
In England, there are no specific statutory torts, that deal with this question. Moreover, this case, cannot fall under intentional torts. Therefore, this question is dealt, under the tort of negligence, but the higher standard of care is required, which was proved in case Nettleship v. Weston. What this means, is that a driver is compared to a “great driver”/ “excellent driver”. There are four requirements that need to be fulfiled in order for a defendant to be negligent. There needs to be 1.) Duty of Care, 2.) Breach, 3.) Causation and 4.) Damage. Firstly, Bob as a driver had a high duty of care to take to be cautious towards the other drivers on the road. Therefore, the first criteria is fulfilled. Nevertheless, the question, was there a breach of the duty of care, cannot be answered affirmatively, because, as seen from the facts of the case, Bob did not act negligently. Therefore, It is assumed, that he took good care of balancing risk and precautionary measures that he needed to take, and that he acted, with an expected skill and knowledge. Therefore, second criteria is not fulfilled. Question of causation, would be probably established, as Bob at least contributed to the collision. Moreover, there was damage, namely physical injury. As a conclusion, Tom cannot claim damages from
As pointed out by Meagher JA in Marien v Gardiner it is not possible that the driver could foresee and react to any event that could take place within the area surrounding the vehicle. Therefore, the driver could not have breached his duty of care in any circumstance that an object by chance is to collide with a vehicle on the road.
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss . The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes  simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
In response to many theories of liability to tort, it is important to understand two major defences to negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk, when handling cases. This is beneficial for defendant to reduce liability when the plaintiff has succeeded to establish the three elements of negligence. In relation to hospitality industry, defences to negligence were frequently used to protect and reduce liability of the hospitality establishment. Even till today, although defences are developing and ever changing, the underlying principles however are substantially the same.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
It is in the best interest of Athletic Directors and coaches to know how the rule of law pertains to athletics, physical education classes and recreation as our society today has become very litigious (Wolohan, 2013). In the case where a tort or wrongful act in which an injury occurred, whole departments, institutions, along with the individual who are in charge of oversight may be sued for negligence (Wolohan, 2013). In the past, it usually was just the individual who needed to be concerned. Hence, because of the increase in civil tort suits associated with athletics which are being brought to our court system to be resolved, sports law has become a major course of study at our colleges and universities (Wolohan, 2013). Therefore, having knowledge of what is or is not a tort, may be helpful to sports administrators in how they manage staff and facilities. Furthermore, the three types of common torts that affect athletic departments are negligence, intentional negligence, and defamation. Hence, examining each further may be helpful to athletic administrators and staff in preventing civil tort law suits.
Tort, is a critical subject of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, latin word for wrong, is the action of causing harm or loss to another person or party . When there is an act of tort, the person who has committed the tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Despite crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes  simply because a tort may not have broken a law so it does not amount to criminal offense. In fact, one must understand that the main idea of tort is not to punish the perpetrator but rather to compensate the people who suffered from the act .
In this essay about tort law, I talked about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do this, I provided a background of the event, applied facts of the case to applicable law, summarized lessons of the week as they related to this case and provided a plausible argument for the parties involved. This is a prime example of breach of a tort law and the case is currently in the process of litigation. It is likely that the parties involved will reach an agreement out of court but may in fact be brought to trial.
This paper will be exploring the various reasons for establishment of the strict liability rule in dog bite cases which will be complemented with a case study involving a gas meter reader bitten by a dog on private property and whether there are other appropriate rules applicable to such cases.
Mamo v Surace (“Mamo”) examines fault and finality, in the context of an unavoidable accident. Definitional discussion emerges within the idea of “fault”, with the outcomes ultimately furthering the legal avenues of victims of blameless accidents, enabled by the separation of non-tortious negligence and “fault”. Notably, the dismissal of arguments raised at appeal furthers the notion that circumstantially, injustice must be endured for the sake of finality, to avoid greater an injustice inflicted upon the opposing counsel .
Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort.
The defendant is an Airlines Company that had 900 employees. The economic crisis followed with monetary crisis gave bad effects to the defendant. They should decrease the number of their airplanes form 9 to 2 airplanes. They also had to do the efficiency on their employees to 700. On the efficiency process, there was an agreement between the defendant and employees representation on October 30 1998. The agreement stated that they would bring Independent Public Accountant to analyze company financial condition. During the process, all side should work on their duty. The Defendant should pay employees’ wage. The agreement was not guarantee that didn’t mean the dispute process was over, but the negotiation still moved on. During the process, there was another agreement between the defendant and several employees. They agreed the finish the disputed process and the employees would get separation pay. Meanwhile, other employees, who were 153 people didn’t agree with that agreement. Because they didn’t agree each other, so the employees gave the case to the “Panitia Penyelesaian Perselisihan Perburuhan Pusat (P4P)”.
IBM provides services, software, and systems to clients across throughout the world. During the transformation to a global corporate enterprise, IBM maintained its core values and principles. As a leader in the industries in which it serves, IBM entered its second century in business dedicated to its culture of fairness and corporate citizenship. IBM utilizes a consistent approach to technology and innovation, and has a positive impact on the communities in which it operates. IBM is passionate about social responsibility, interested in making a positive change in society, and is making a profound difference throughout the world on global issues such as AIDS, cancer, education, and hunger (Kanter, 2011).
The legal nature about Ben drove at high speed that cause a car accident by damaged the car of HighTech Motors Ltd and let Janet suffered multiple fractures to her legs violated Law of Tort in a civil case. According to Law of Tort, ‘the civil wrongdoer liable to pay damages to victims and it concerns with claims for property damage or personal injuries directly arising out of breaches of a duty of care owed by one individual to another.’ Also, ‘Tort law provides compensation for injury to the person or property causing pure economic loss and for injury to reputation or fame’.