Question A The issue at hand is that Brandon's wife, Bella, was injured due to a burst of steam caused by operating an electric steam oven that Brandon won. The steam caused Bella to sustained second degree burns and had to be rushed to the hospital. If Bella decides to claim damages under the tort of negligence, she needs to establish grounds for the claim. There are three elements to the tort of negligence, which are the legal duty of care, breached of the duty of care, and last is the resulting injury or damage caused by the breach. The first element is the legal duty of care, this element talks about whether the defendant, has the duty of care to the plaintiff. Now this is where we need to establish whether Zenzoong has that legal duty of care and to do that we use the neighbor principle, which was used in a 1932 case of Donoghue V Stevenson. The person that …show more content…
This factor refers to whether the injury or harm happens occasionally or quite often. In this case, Brandon manage to find an online forum which showed him that there were other cases regarding the oven, thus this clearly show that the injury caused by the oven happens often. The third factor is the seriousness of the injury. As the factor states itself, it relates to the level of the injury sustained by the plaintiff. In this case, Bella suffered second degree burns, which required her to be rushed to the hospital. In conclusion, her injury was very serious. The last factor is the cost of avoiding risk. This factor is best explained with an example. Now the owner of a gym noticed that there was a leak in the men's showers. The owner decided to call a plumber to fix the leak to prevent members from slipping on the floor. Now one day, a member slipped in the showers, can he sue the owner for tort of negligence? He cannot sue the owner as he spent money to fix the leak. This means that the defendant spent money to avoid the risk, and thus can't be
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
Defendant must show that plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for their own safety which caused the damage. It is not necessary for plaintiff t...
In conclusion, Mitchie will not be able to prove that Blizzard Resorts Inc. owed him the duty of care cause he voluntary assumed the risk after proceeding at his own will therefore Blizzards Resorts will likely not be responsible of the liability of Mitchie for injury or loss suffered to their premises as only 3 out of the 4 elements were proven in a negligence cause of
A police officer, Colin Allcars (Allcars), is suing Harry’s Ammo World (HAW) for his medical expenses, personal injuries, pain and suffering. HAW sold a rifle to Dakota D. West without checking West’s background for felonies or drug use. Federal law prevents the sale of firearms to anyone with a felony or to anyone that uses illegal drugs. Dakota had been convicted of a felony and was also a user of marijuana. Two months after the sale Dakota’s brother took the rifle and took hostages. When the police were trying to subdue and arrest Dakota’s brother he shot and wounded Colin AllCars. Allcars is suing HAW on the grounds of negligence.
In conclusion, McIntyre vs. Balentine was a landmark case in the United States regarding contributory negligence in a lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed following an accident in which the plaintiff and defendant were involved though they disputed each other’s claims on the chronology of events preceding the incident. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that they were equally at fault despite the fact that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling since comparative negligence is not law in the state and affirming the admissibility of criminal presumption of intoxication as evidence in a civil case.
To succeed in this case, Silton's attorney must prove all four elements of negligence. The first element of negligence is known as the duty. It means the Jumpin NightClub owned a duty of care to the plaintiff (Silton) (Miller & Cross, ch. 5-4). The second element of negligence is known as the breach. It means the Jumpin NightClub breached that duty (Miller & Cross, ch. 5-4). The third element of negligence is known as the causation. It means the Jumpin NightClub's breach caused the plaintiff's injury (Silton's injury) (Miller & Cross, ch. 5-4). The fourth element of negligence is known as the damages. It means the plaintiff (Silton) suffered a legally recognizable injury (Miller & Cross, ch. 5-4). Based on the case, Silton was in the club,
The tort involved in this case is that of negligence, which is defined as the breach of an individual’s duty to take reasonable care in situations where damage has occurred to another person or organisation (Legal Services Commission, 2013).
There are multiple elements that must be proved in order to justify that the hotel owner, Fredericks, was negligent. These five elements consist of duty, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause and actual damages. It is the duty of all parties to act reasonably and to not impart unreasonable risk
A tort is considered to be a civil wrong from which injury occurs to another person whether it is intentional or accidental. For such an offense, monetary value is the usual form of remedy. A classification of torts is that of negligence. “The tort of negligence allocates rights to individuals who have suffered damage, to their property or themselves, against a party that has failed to take reasonable care for that person’s safety” (Adams 2008). For an individual to have a successful claim in the tort of negligence, there must be proof of the duty of care, failure to perform that duty and damage suffered. Duty of care means that the claimant should show that the defendant should have thought about them (the claimant)
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.
...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.
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
It seems as though Brad and Chardonnay have been subject to professional negligence, or more specific negligent misstatement. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, one of the significant difference being you cannot claim for economic loss within general negligence but you can in professional (provided specific criteria are met).
The plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to act reasonably, that the defendant failed to fulfill that obligation, that the breach of duty caused the plaintiffs injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered some sort of injury. In order to prove that the defendant was negligent and therefore liable for their injuries, the plaintiff must prove all of the elements which are duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. For instance, one of the elements is damages, meaning the plaintiff must have suffered damages (injuries, loss, etc.) in order for the defendant to be held liable. So even if you can prove that the defendant indeed acted negligently, you may not collect damages if you didn't suffer any injuries. The law will not hold a defendant liable for every injury to the plaintiff but only for those injuries that are proven and directly related to a breach of a
To succeed in a negligence action, you must prove each of the following. The first element, did George owe the plaintiff a legal duty of care? Legal duty of care paradigm includes that a person acts towards others with attention, prudence, and caution. George owed a duty of care to people by leaving his car in park.