Defendants cannot take an excuse in negligence cases that they did not have the requisite skill or knowledge which would have allowed them to take more care, as also explained in the maxim imperitia non exculpatur. The question that arises is that what should be the standard of care that is expected from the defendants. In the majority of cases, the answer to the question is the objective standard of care because the courts usually apply the objective
The common law approach to statutory interpretation is to read legislation and deduce the meaning that Parliament ascribed to the relevant terms. But when it comes to negligence and one of its elements causation simply understanding the terms will not suffice. “It is one of the most important yet ill-deﬁned principles of the law”. Causation brings about a sense of uncertainty and until now the only way people would understand this area of law was through common sense. This essay will examine the problem with causation. In the first stage, this paper will go over the Review of the Law of Negligence Report (“Ipp Report” or “Report”) and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) (“the Act”). In the second part of the paper, the writer will present the issues on causation that were not discussed in the Ipp Report and why it is better to refer to case law. The argument that this essay will make will be that although the approach taken by the Ipp Report can be useful, it merely provides ‘legislative guidance’ and should only be used as extrinsic material. Hence, it is best to refer to case law when it comes to this nebulous area of law.
There are several disagreements over the meaning of negligence, but it can be said to occur when the defendant has behaved in the way in which a reasonable person would not . There exists numerous crimes for which the mens rea is negligence, although some argue negligence should not be classified as a mens rea, where most of these are minor crimes of a regulatory nature . The concept of negligence is undoubtedly complex due to the fact that it is not certain whether it deserves criminal punishment. Whether culpability lies in choosing to act wrongly when having the capacity to do otherwise, or manifests itself in other forms such as carrying out a serious criminal offence regardless of lack of intention, recklessness or knowledge, continues to provoke debate. The arguments for and against the notion that serious criminal offences
Negligence can be defined as any conduct that is ‘careless or unintentional in nature and entails a breach of any contractual duty or duty of care in tort owed to another person or persons’.(Godsell, 1993 P23)
Many times, good advice will happen if a person has gone astray, then, suggestions would be made to the lost and he could either take it or leave it. Also, as Doug mentioned in discussion, is that "it may be impossible to deny information given to you." So, in this case, the advisee knows what has been said to them, and "he may not take the advice at the time", but store it for later.(Nate Hall), and because of this, good, or bad advice, in my opinion, is also in the eye of the beholder. Advice may only be used if it hasn't been heard before. For example, if someone is doing something wrong, and someone keeps telling them over and over, it may just go in one ear and out the other. This is why the advisor must find a way to leave the suggestions up the person weather they want to use it or not and they have to be ready for the information given to them.(Mike)
Test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior Vol. 21, No. 1, p.
In this essay will describe the meaning of defamation, libel and outline the changes to the law of libel brought in by the Defamation Act 2013. There will contain explanation and critically evaluate how the new law might operate in practice have been positive or negative.
To beginning, I must first define advice. Advice is any guidance given with the goal of alternating a perceived
3) Plaintiff must prove a deliberate or intentional harm on the part of Defendant. Mistake of fact does not mean that there was no intention.
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
Frank Cavico, ‘Fraudulent, Negligent, and Innocent Misrepresentation in Employment Context: The Deceitful, Careless, and Thoughtless Employer (1997) 20 Campbell Law Review 1
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...
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).
However this theory of ‘intrinsic risk’ does have some inadequacies specifically in relation to a section 2B offence.