Issues 1. Under Premises Liability, are the homeowners liable for injuries to Vicky? 2. Were Dwayne and Felix multiple necessary causes to negligence? Were they liable? 1.Negligence of Homeowner Injury: Vicky suffered a sufficient predicate physical injury of several serious beestings. Duty: The general rule for premises liability is that there is a duty to keep the premises in reasonably safe conditions. Vicky was a trespasser on the land because she had no express or implied consent to be there. In light of this relationship, because Vicky was a trespasser, under the traditional common law categories, there is no duty but to not willfully or wantonly harm the trespasser. Counter Argument: The homeowners were new to the home and had only …show more content…
Dwayne and Felix breached their duties to comply with the voluntary undertaking to the best of their ability by leaving Vicky on her own after they initiated administering aid and were aware she had suffered injury. Because they did not wait until Vicky was being adequately taken care of by emergency personnel and left her by the roadside after calling 911 for the ambulance they breached their duty. Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine: Vicky could argue for a res ipsa jury instruction however it is unlikely that it would be granted because she would be able to prove two of three necessary elements. Actual Cause-Multiple Necessary Causes: But for the concurrence of Felix and Dwayne moving Vicky, and Dwayne dropping Vicky, the shoulder and rotator cuff injuries would not have occurred. The actions of Dwayne and Felix moving Vicky’s body together were multiple necessary causes to the injury. Proximate Cause: The shoulder and rotator cuff injuries were within the scope of the risks that made us determine that the dropping of Vicky’s body was a breach. Because Dwayne dropped Vicky, Dwayne’s dropping of Vicky’s body proximately caused the injuries sustained. Felix’s carrying of the body was a cause in fact but not the proximate cause of the injuries Vicky
Similarly, we discussed the Koffman v. Garnett case in class when Richard and Rebecca Koffman, on the behalf of Andrew, sued Garnett in a Virginia court for gross negligence, assault, and battery. The situation was that Coach Garnett used Andrew Koffman in a tackling demonstration. Therefore, he then proceeded to pick him up 2 feet off the ground and threw him to the ground, injuring him to break his arm. Nevertheless, a sport manager should ultimately realize that liability is a serious risk for any organization and should be extremely careful of the situations by not putting themselves at risk for any liability, since they can face a civil lawsuit or criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law for their negligent behavior by harmfully injuring another
It is possible to hold that Stone and Dobinson caused the victims death because there was a legal duty on the Defendants(D) to care for the deceased(V), which they accepted. Given that they had voluntarily undertaken responsibility of the provision of V’s basic needs and that V occupied a room in the house (there was also some indication that the family relationship between V and one of the defendants had also contributed to the duty), once helplessness supervened The victim was dependant and reasonably relied upon stone and Dobinson, and in the absence of any steps to dissociate themselves from responsibility by placing her in the care of others (although there are some signs that they made attempts to do this), It is this reliance that generates
The Plaintiff Julia Bishop was severely injured when Elizabeth Morich’s foot slipped off of the brake and onto the accelerator and struck the Plaintiff, pushing her through the wall of the storage shed. Elizabeth Morich did not have a driver’s license at the time, nor had she begun driving instruction. The Bishops sued Elizabeth Morich on a theory of negligence and her parents on a theory of negligent entrustment and supervision. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Defendant’s parents on the negligent entrustment supervision account.
While Bill junior’s act of pushing his father could be argued within the boundaries of Cause in Fact, (the “But for”), there was an unforeseeable event in the rug actually causing his father to fall into the coffee table. Thus, in scenario one there was a coincidental intervening act, the rug, which actually caused the fall and death of Bill
What is the difference between a unilateral mistake and a bilateral mistake of fact? Identify which theory was applied in the Michael Jordan case discussed at the beginning and end of the chapter and explain what the mistake of fact was.
“2. Causation (the person who is being brought into the court actually caused the injury)
Another offence under which Moby might be convicted is s47 for he stuck Cyril on head causing him to pass out for a few minutes. Applying the case of T v DPP a momentary loss of consciousness is sufficient for s47. This is defined as occasioning actual bodily harm also referred as ABH. There are three elements for actus reus. There must be as assault or battery. We have already established that Moby might be convicted for battery.
The author is however of the opinion that this is a significantly wrongful act because the victim was asleep and hence there is no significant question of the use of force. The action made her to rise out of her sleep and then she took the needed action of calling the police.
Second key fact is Ruth’s carelessness in parking her vehicle that somehow led to harming Jim. Although Ruth had no intentions of causing harm, if it weren’t for her recklessness, the incident would not have happened. Jim can claim recovery from Ruth, in tort law, by her violation of duty of care (What is a "duty of care"?, n.d.). It is when one acts negligently and harms a person that causes suffering, whether physically, economically, or mentally, from their failure of being reasonably
The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) is the primary legislation used in Victoria that pertains to and governs claims for damages in cases that have resulted in personal injury or death; excluding transport accidents and work related injuries. Section 48 of The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) specifically applies to duty of care; that is, whether or not a person, persons or company etc. had and/or have a legal obligation to an injured party. This piece seeks to evaluate the usefulness of section 48 of The Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) in determining whether or not a duty of care exists between parties of varying circumstances, to highlight the Sections shortcomings and to point out which aspects of common law and other relevant legislation supplement the sections inadequacies.
Hays). In People v. Mungia, the jury decided that the defendant used more force than necessary to accomplish theft from the person because the defendant was larger and the victim was more susceptible to his shove. Zupp may have used more force than necessary to accomplish the taking of the book however the victim was not susceptible to him since he was a “little guy.” In both cases the defendants came in contact with the victim by either a “shove” or a “bump.” Since force is relative, the jury must decide whether or not the force exerted was incidental or an intentional separate
Injuries inflicted on Leanne’s body suggested that whoever caused her injuries intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
The General Assembly should vote to change the current law of contributory negligence. It is not completely fair and is too strict. Comparative negligence is a better system because money is given for the percentage the person is not at fault. The pure comparative system should be put in place due to many other states already using it. Few states still use the pure contributory negligence and that is for a good reason. A person can still receive some compensatory damages in the comparative negligence system. I believe that is why around 45 states use comparative negligence for determining fault between two parties in tort suits. North Carolina needs to come to term with the present. Comparative law has been rejected in house or committee which has not allowed it to pass to become a law. Most of the tries to push contributory negligence out of law has only been two or three votes away. The people who opposed it believe that it will cause insurance premiums to rise heavily. They claim it would cost the government
In order to establish a duty of care, the question to ask is that is it foreseeable that careless conduct of D will result in an injury against a class of person which P belongs to (Chapman), and that the risk that is not far-fetched or fanciful (Sullivan). Here in this case, D is a lifeguard and P is a swimmer, it is foreseeable that any careless conduct by the lifeguard may result in injury sustained by a swimmer. The careless conduct to be analysed is
The last and fourth element is that act must cause death. It is also the most essential element that the intentional, unlawful and dangerous act taken out by the defendant must have caused someone’s death to convict them for UAM. If such an act did not cause the death of a person, then the defendant cannot be convicted of