The law 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). The main purposes of laws against negligent behaviour is to provide compensation for victims whom have suffered or made at loss at the hands of a negligent party or to deter members of the community from participating in negligent behaviour (US Legal, 2016). To successfully prove that an act of negligence has occurred, three elements need to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt (Tomson Reuters, 2016). The first of these elements is that a duty of care was owed to the person. To prove this …show more content…
He would receive payout for his damages. There are various types of payouts ranging from future medical services to loss of life enjoyment (Tomson Reuters, 2016). The payouts that are most likely to be suited to this case are for future economic loss, as he has lost his career and an NRL star, and for medical expenses and any adaptations that may be needed in his house. 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 worst case scenario would be if the defendant successfully defended the case and found that the NRL were not liable for the injury and its losses. 5. Consider all Stakeholders · Alex MacKinnon · Family
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
...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,...
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.
...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. #
American football or rugby is a sport where injuries are considered to be common. It is not written in your article but I am assuming that in rugby, if a player does not have a minor injury then it is considered that he hasn’t given his best in the game. But the injuries sometimes get too major such as that of Tony Dorsett. He got struck on his neck by a helmet which barreled into him like a Ferrari at 220kmph. Players like Tony Dorsett are injured almost everyday in rugby. These injuries are sometimes long lasting and a perfect example can be of Mr. Dorsett’s CTE. “CTE is caused by the regular thwack-thwack of the player’s head on his helmet.” It obviously must have hurt him a lot and also maybe destroyed his promising and bright career in this game.
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...
Negligence is a tort law and it falls within the civil law which means a civil wrong has been committed (Tort and Negligence, 2012). The American civil justice system, defines the law of torts as situations that occur when the wrongful conduct of one party causes harm to another individual (WiseGeek, 2003). The responsible party fails to act as a reasonable person to someone to whom she or he owes a duty, as required by law under the circumstances. Negligent torts are not committed purposely, and there must be an injury that occurs from the breach of the duty (Negligent Tort Law, 2014).
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
Damages – if the other party cause’s drastic damages that cost the other party or affect it negatively than the other party can sue and take them to court of law, and the court may claim that the affected party may be paid and be taken back to its original position as it was