Introduction Strict Liability can be defined as a legal principle that refers to entire legal of responsibility for an injury that can be enforced on the “defendant” without any proof of negligence. Generally, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was doing something wrong that cause the plaintiff to be injured or negligence towards the plaintiff (Cheeseman 2010). However, for strict liability, there is no required for the plaintiff to prove fault or negligence. Besides, strict liability also called absolute liability. There are some issues which applied to the strict liability, such as the damages of a defective product or animals and involved in some dangerous activities. A person might be responsible for strictly liable in civil …show more content…
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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss . The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes  simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
Vicarious liability is a common law concept that refers to the liability that arises when one party, such as an employer, is legally liable for the acts or omissions of another party, such as an employee. This is because employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees and those of others who come into contact with them and their business.
When you or your loved one walks into a business or is invited onto private property , you expect to be walking into a safe environment. Business are responsible for taking certain measures to ensure the safety of you and your loved one. If you become injured because of a property owner 's failure to keep their property free from hazards, hidden or known, you may have a legal claim against the property owner. This is a premise liability case. Below are some frequently asked questions and answers regarding premise liability claims.
...n when the manufacturer goes to great length to warn consumers against possible hazards of the product, these warnings are not always sufficient protection from failure-to-warn lawsuits. The manner in which each lawsuit is defended against can also provide a deterrent against such suits in the future.
Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.
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.
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.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould  1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority  All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
Law Of Tort This is a fairly unique case in the respect that there was one victim named Imogen who was first hit by a car and secondly run over by a van and was left with a concussion and a lame leg due to somewhat negligent riving skills of two drivers. Secondly there was a pedestrian and a witness to all of this, Gabriel who suffered psychiatric illness after he has rescued the injured child. Since the accident took place in England law of tort would be applicable, which is prevalent in England, Wales and Scotland and the parties who would be able to file the claim are Imogen and Gabriel. The guilty parties are Horace, the driver of the car and Joseph who was driving the van. To begin with if we look at the case more closely, Imogen was walking on the zebra crossing and that was her right and any passerby in a car should have halted which Horace did not. It was Gabriel who took a lot of risk and rescued the kid but to what avail. Once he had dragged her out the van ran over the kid damaging her leg almost permanently. The driver Joseph was speeding notably fast just because he was late on duty to his own negligence and that makes him guilty on two counts. First he dishonored his employer and secondly ran over a kid who was lying on the road because of his speeding. Not only by the rules of driving but also in the light of humanitarian laws that is simply unacceptable and it does get any more reckless than this. The law would definitely come into play and it depends on how these two present their cases. This is the case of proposition underpinning the deduction options. It has to be argued whether the parties agree or disagree with that proposition. It is particularly interesting to hear views on discussion of the policy argum...