Negligence Case Analysis

Torts and crimes are similar in that they both have to do with wrongs being righted, torts are the remedies of an offence that was made against the private interests of an individual or company (Boyd, 2015). There are two types of torts, torts of intention and torts of negligence (Boyd, 2015). Negligence is the failure of the individual to conform to the standard of reasonable care, essentially the individual fails to do what a reasonable person would do in the given situation or they act in a manner that is not consistent with how reasonable people would act (Boyd, 2015). In the case of negligence there has to be harm caused directly from the action or inaction taken by the accused. Negligence torts have been put into place so both companies and the general public are held responsible for their actions and inactions. The inaction part of negligence torts are incredibly important because it prevents people

The caregivers allowed the children to play outside by a freeway without adult supervision (Annapolis County District School Board v. Marshall, 2012). The caregivers also did not take any actions to prevent this from happening such as building a fence around their property which would have prevented their child from running out onto the freeway (Annapolis County District School Board v. Marshall, 2012). So the caregivers are the only party in this situation that could be considered negligent because of the inaction that they took to make sure that the area that their children would be in was safe. Not only did their negligence cause tremendous harm to the child because of the injuries he sustained but they also caused emotional harm to the bus driver. In a situation like this one no court could justifiably rule that the parents be forced to compensate the driver, the pain that both they and the child are suffering is more than enough deterrent to them and