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.
Miller, R. L., and Hollowell, W. E. (2006). 2007 Business law and legal environment texts. Mason, OH: West Legal Studies in Business.
There are four elements in the tort of negligence: duty of care, breach of duty, proximate cause and harm or damage that is attributed to the breach of duty. Negligence is the breach of duty to take care, wherein breach is considered on the basis of the standard of care required.
The tort of negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar circumstance. Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, a failure to exercise reasonable care. Cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages and proximate cause. Which is showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.
... become all too rare in today’s leaders,” and went on to explain that unfortunately the trend of irresponsibility is introduced to us as children at a young age. It can begin with waivers which abdicate responsibility of the school or institution should one decide to have their child play sports (2013). Unfortunately it does not end there; more often than not we purchase goods and services which come with notices that limit the company’s liability if their product does not perform necessarily as intended. Sadly, with lawsuits such as Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaraunts, which awarded an undisclosed amount of money to the defendant due to the coffee being “too hot,” these types of limited liability notices, that most would call common sense, are going to become much more common. After all how is one supposed to know that the coffee is hot without the warning label?
Tort law is it intentional or is it unintentional, how do you know? Tort law is “A body of rights, obligations, and remedies that is applied by courts in civil proceedings this is to provide relief to those who suffered harm from the wrongful acts of others” (The Free Dictionary). The word tort is a french word meaning a wrong and a tort is classified as intentional or unintentional. Tort law is used for a party who is injured to bring a civil lawsuit against the defendant or wrong doer. The party who sues can receive a monetary reward for damages that occurred to the person who brought the civil lawsuit onto the wrong doer.
First, a tort discussed in the Essentials of Business Law book is negligence. Failing to exercise reasonable care to protect others from risk or harm is considered negligence (Luizzo, 2016). Recently, due to the success of cases against negligent individuals and business, it has become a more common practice. For example, a person may now be more encouraged to sue a company due to an injury caused by a certain product. However, even when it’s not an
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
The liability will, therefore, follow a variety of such wrongful acts as false imprisonment, environmental pollution, infringement of intellectual property rights and copyright, product liability, defamation of character, and vehicle and other
Most of the states have adopted this doctrine nowadays. Most of the difficulties for the plaintiff associated with some other theories of the product liability is removed by the doctrine of strict liability . Strict liability that related to the product liability states that all parties in the chain of distribution would be equally liable for the sale of the defective products. Manufacturers, distributors or sellers must be responsible if the products are defective and even the plaintiffs suffer injuries. Strict liability relates to product liability does not require any evidences to prove that the person suffers any injuries because of that particular products, it only needs to prove that the action of the defendant causes the injuries. For strict liability that related to product liability, when the product is defective, the manufacturers or sellers must held. The doctrine of strict liability applies to seller and lessors who involved in the business sector. For example, if a subcomponent manufacturer produces a defective table and chair and sells it to the furniture manufacturer. The furniture manufacturer puts the defective table and chair in the new section. The distributor distributed the table and chair to a retailer. The retailer sells it to the customers. Unfortunately, the customer is injured. All the parties in the chain of distribution are
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
As we go about our daily lives we interact with a variety of products and services, many of which are key parts into how we live. We trust the policies, procedures and laws that are in place within society to protect us is the event we are to incur harm. The issue of product liability has become increasingly prominent in the news and has left many individuals wondering how safe the products we use daily are. The issue of tort and product liability was no more aware than the case of Gladys Escola, Respondent, v. Coca Cola Bottling Company of Fresno. It highlighted how issues that are interpreted as isolated could become a bigger problems and lead to large litigation cases.