Question Presented Susan is shopping in a supermarket. She passes through the fresh fruit section, slips on a squashed banana and breaks her hip. Does she have a legal claim against the supermarket? Short Answer Yes. This is because it’s the supermarket responsibility to ensure that the premises around are well cleaned and free from anything that can cause harm or danger to any of their customer or workers. Presence of the squashed banana in the premises is a sign of mismanagement and recklessness. Statement of Facts On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law) The supermarket is located on the third floor of a known …show more content…
Robert Diotalevi FROM: Lucy Opauski RE: Robert Case - John Reckless Driving DATE: November 5, 2016 Question Presented John and Robert are enjoying their first ride in Johns new Miata Convertible with the top down. While the sun is now out. It has just rained, there are still puddles on the road and John is driving much too fast. John loses control of the car on the sharp curve and skids. Robert not wearing his seatbelt, is thrown out from the vehicle and is injured. John, belted in, had gained control of the car and has no injuries. His car is undamaged. Is John liable for damage claim for damage claim from Robert who was not wearing a seatbelt? Short Answer Yes. John is liable to damage claim by Robert. This is under deep insight that the cause of the accident was due to the over speeding despite the weather. Additionally, John gained control after Robert was thrown out. He skidded intentionally to have Robert thrown out. Therefore, John is liable for the claim. Statement of
Primrose claimed about the incident at Wal-Mart Stores, INC., that they were trying to cause any kind of harm to her. Based on the evidence that had been provided to the court have proved that the signs was clear enough to be seen by everyone around the area at that time. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not asking her to go around the display in order for her to transported the watermelon. The Judges thinks that the incident would not happened if Ms.Primrose can move her shopping cart closer so it would be easier for her to transferred the watermelon. Therefore, the Judges are agreed with the trial court’s decision to grant the defendant their motion for summary judgment, after it had been proven that the display was open and obvious to be seen by everyone and there’s no sign of any risk or mean to harm anyone. Also, Ms. Primrose was failed to prove her’s argues that she claimed above to support her liability to La. R.S. 9:2800.6, the Judges cannot impose any enforcement or duty upon the defendant. In conclusion, the three assignments of error cannot be
On February 27, 1992 Stella Liebeck of New Mexico went to purchase coffee from Mc. Donald in her grandson’s car. Liebeck’s grandson then parked the car to give her an opportunity to put her cream into her coffee. The car transporting her at the time, had no cup holder so she improvised and placed the cup between her legs. During that process Liebeck spilled all of her coffee and was rushed to the hospital, because the coffee burn through the pants that she was wearing. Upon arriving at the hospital she was informed by the doctors that she suffered third degree on six percent of her skin. Liebeck suffered tremendously as a result of the burn. She was hospitalized for eight days and had to undergo surgery. Apart from that she was somewhat disabled for two years. Liebeck made attempts to settle with McDonald, she wanted them to be accountable for the injury she suffered. She wanted them to pay for the incurred expenses as well as the expense she anticipated in the future. McDonald on the other hand agreed to pay $800.00 but Liebeck was asking for $20.000. This case wasn’t settled using ADR methods so it became a trial (Wiki, n.d).
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
John and Megan are at a crowded theater. In the press of people exiting the theater, John accidentally steps on Megan's toe and breaks it. Megan can sue John for the tort of battery.
Under California Law, should Charles and Paddy’s be held liable by the court for negligence and award Dennis with compensation when the incident occurred as a result of Dennis’ and Charlie’s destruction of the property, Charles owed no duty to Dennis, Dennis knew the foreseeable risk just as well as Charles, and Paddy’s had posted warnings for the damages that caused the incident in question?
The Responsibility for Accident case is about an argument between an employee, called John Schmidt, and his employer. The dispute occurred when John seriously injured his hand when operating a machine in the production shop and neither John nor the company
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, et.al 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential
This paper will discuss how the courts use the concept of duty of care in the English legal system to limit liability and how through case law they have created specific principles and standard tests which have placed limits on dealing with negligence.
Both Sam and Ronny had knowledge of all the wrong doings that they were doing. From the drag racing, to the speeding, to running the red light, to hitting Sam and Running over Sam and not stopping. Not only will they be charged with Intentional Tort of battery, but they will be charged with a hit and run as well. Intentional Tort of Battery is voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact with a person or to do something closely associated with them. Ronny and Sam ran the red light which means if will be easier to catch them because red lights have cameras on them. Both Ronny and Sam will have to pay for the damages because there is no way of knowing which injury or injuries Ronny caused and which injury or injuries Sam caused. Because it was 2 people (Ronny and Sam) they are both responsible for Pete’s injuries it is joint liability. If one of them are broke (Ronny or Sam) the one with the money with have to pay if they get sued and then the other would have to pay the other back. So if Ronny was broke, Sam would have to pay Pete for the both of them and then Ronny would reimburse Sam. If Ronny and Sam’s defense is Assumption of risk they might be able to win the case, but I hardly doubt they will win because even though stepping foot onto the street is a risk in it self, having the right of way to walk counter acts the
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.
For example : person who shopping in supermarket and employee of the supermartket washed the floor ten minutes ago and floor is not dry,there is no sign to warn person that floor is wet,person slip on the floor and hurt leg and then he have to go to hospital, in spite of it he can not go to work for three week, in this situation he need to make a claim based on the principles of the law of tort. In this situation we have a person have physically hurt and he lost money,because of someone else’s
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...
George failed to comply with the duty of care, causing his car to roll downhill. According to the authors, negligence occurs when someone suffers an injury or damage to property because of a party’s failure to live up to a required duty of care (Mayer, Warner, Siedel, & Lieberman, 2014, p. 161). Negligence is an unintentional tort that the tortfeasor either wishes to bring consequences of the act or thinks that they will occur (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 161). For George to be liable for negligence, I will explain the following elements.
In this case, the defendant was held to be not liable for negligence because any other reasonable race track operator would have acted in the same way. Similarly, in Glasgow Corporation v Muir, the defendant was held to be not liable for negligence because he had acted as a reasonable person would have by allowing the claimants entry into his tea room when the weather was bad
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...