Issue: Are the agents G Shepherd & Co. and the loose asbestos insulation assessor, Basil, liable in negligence for harm that has occurred to Roland and Belle’s family? Relevant Rules or law: The Tort of Negligence: The Negligence is the failure for someone to take reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury, loss or damage to other people. It also contains both intended and unintended acts and omission. The Negligence action can only be liable to the plaintiff by counting the following three elements which are based on the balance of probabilities under common law and statute : 1 Duty of care The duty of care exists in the relevant situation where risk of harm or injury to plaintiffs was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ and the plaintiff was ‘closely and directly affected’ by the defendant’s act. The injuries not only include personal injury or property damage but also the risk of purely economic loss, for example, resulting from negligent misstatements. Whether it is the reasonable person’s response would be considered from various factors: (a) the probability of harm occurring; (b) the likely seriousness of the harm; (c) the burden of taking appropriate precautions; (d) the social utility of the activity. 3 Damage The plaintiff’s damage, which caused by the defendant’s negligence, must be recognised by the law and not too ‘remote’ to be compensated. The “but for” text can be used to exam the causal relation between the breach and damage. However, even though the causal link exist in fact, the defendant may not be liable for the damage if the damage is not foreseeable. Application (negligent
...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.
The first component of the four D’s of negligence is duty. The dentist owed a duty of care to every one of his patients. Duty of care is a legal obligation a health care worker, in this case, the dentist, owes to their patient and, at times,...
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse . This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee  and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
...ulations in the U.S. judicial system is “most define the law as a system of principles and processes by which people in a society deal with disputes and problems, seeking to solve or settle them without resorting to force” (p. 15). Some situations cannot be rectified in a board meeting. However, negligence is in the category of objectives of tort law, it is also the most popular lawsuit pursued by patients against medical professionals against doctors and healthcare organizations (Bal, 2009). Objectives of Tort Law
Under California Law, should Charles and Paddy’s be held liable by the court for negligence and award Dennis with compensation when the incident occurred as a result of Dennis’ and Charlie’s destruction of the property, Charles owed no duty to Dennis, Dennis knew the foreseeable risk just as well as Charles, and Paddy’s had posted warnings for the damages that caused the incident in question?
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.
General speaking, a tort of negligence is a failure of someone or one party to follow a standard of care which means failed to do what a reasonable person do or do what a reasonable personal would not do. From the interest perspective, the tort of negligent investigation is an offence against private interest of an individual, corporation or government due to the negligent investigation. Whether a tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada is related to whether investigators owe a duty of care to person being investigated and what is the standard of care. Finally, a tort of negligent investigation only exist when there is a loss or injury to the suspect and the loss or injury was caused by the negligent investigation.
Liability for negligence is a civil matter. In liability negligence, the victim has to be able to prove that the defendant has legal obligations, and the obligations was breached, and that they have received foreseeable harm as a consequence of the negligence alleged. If the victim can prove that there was a breach of a legal obligation then he/she will be awarded damages based on the basis of the harm caused or loss sustained.
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.
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...
The liability for negligent misstatement may arise from pure economic loss. According to Steele (2010), ‘Economic losses will be regarded as “pure” if they do not flow from any personal injury to the claimant nor from physical damage to his or her property’. The boundaries between “pure” economic loss and the loss which is “consequential” from damage were established by the Court
Negligence is a concept that was passed from Great Britain to the United States. It arose out of common law, which is made up of court decisions that considered whether a defendant had an obligation to act with greater care. It is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm and involves a failure to fulfill a duty that causes injury to another. Many torts depend on whether there was intent but negligence does not. Negligence looks to see whether the person had a duty to act with care. It emphasizes the need for people to act reasonably in society. This is important because accidents will happen. Negligence helps the law establish whether these accidents could have been avoided, if there was a breach of duty to act reasonably, and if that breach was the cause of injury to that person. By focusing on the conduct rather than the intent of the defendant, the tort of negligence reflects society’s desire to
The second element of the negligence is the breach of the duty of due care. By definition, “Any act that fails to meet a standard of the person’s duty of due care toward others” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 161). George breaches the duty of care because he did not set the parking brake, which then scraped a Prius that is driving up the road, then crosses the 6th Avenue service drive, breaks through the fencing and smashes into the light rail