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). When determining whether an act is tortious or not, there are three elements to consider. These elements are duty of care, breach of duty and caused harm or loss. Duty of care, …show more content…
The engineer breached the duty of care through failing his/her duty to warn by providing insufficient warning on the limitation of the application. His/her software application caused the structural firm to designed a defective bridge and was the direct cause of many deaths. The junior engineer should be held liable for his/her product due to the principle known as product liability. This is evident in the case study because deaths and injuries due to defective product as a result of the software were foreseeable. Looking at the 1971 case of Lambert v. Lastoplex Chemicals Co. Limited et al., the manufacturers must not only instruct the user how to properly use the products but also warn the user the consequences of misuse . This precedent case proves that the engineer failed to warn the structural firm of the limitation of the application as well as failed to warn the consequences of using the application beyond its capabilities. However, the information technology firm may be held vicariously liable for the mistake of the junior engineer as he/she developed the software application during his/her employment. The reason being the employer generally has deeper pocket than the employee  and the collapse was a result of the junior engineer developing the application under the authority of the employer. Thus, the junior engineer is one of the tortfeasor to which the information firm maybe vicariously liable for his/her
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Engineers, contractors, and other businesses must be mindful of and knowledgeable of their legal obligations when performing their occupation or supplying a product. Negligence in the design or construction of a product that results in damage or bodily harm, or could result in damage or bodily harm, can result in liability for economic loss under Canadian Tort law. Engineers, architects, and contractors need to be respectful of their duty of care to ensure their product is precisely produced with no danger of negligence.
Tort is a word developed to describe in general the different types of claims that are normally imposing economic and financial losses that are because of some kind of misbehavior, apart from breach of contract. The term is used to refer to this type of claims, false presentations, fraud, breach of contract, encouragement, unfair competition, trade name and trademark infringement and interference with business relationships (Emanuel, S.
The tort of negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar circumstance. Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, a failure to exercise reasonable care. Cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages and proximate cause. Which is showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.
It is in the best interest of Athletic Directors and coaches to know how the rule of law pertains to athletics, physical education classes and recreation as our society today has become very litigious (Wolohan, 2013). In the case where a tort or wrongful act in which an injury occurred, whole departments, institutions, along with the individual who are in charge of oversight may be sued for negligence (Wolohan, 2013). In the past, it usually was just the individual who needed to be concerned. Hence, because of the increase in civil tort suits associated with athletics which are being brought to our court system to be resolved, sports law has become a major course of study at our colleges and universities (Wolohan, 2013). Therefore, having knowledge of what is or is not a tort, may be helpful to sports administrators in how they manage staff and facilities. Furthermore, the three types of common torts that affect athletic departments are negligence, intentional negligence, and defamation. Hence, examining each further may be helpful to athletic administrators and staff in preventing civil tort law suits.
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.
may face is economic loss. This is because Acme Underground Ltd. owes a duty of care to provide correct report of the sub-surface conditions to Mr.Sharp and the Municipality. Yet, they breach such duty when Subsurface Wizard determined that Acme Underground has made a significant error by not fully testing the soil. This caused the Municipality 350 thousand dollars extra to build the revised design . However, this is not possible for the Municipality to pay because they stated to Mr.Sharp that it is not economically feasible for them to build the bridge if it costed more than 1.8 million dollars . Since the Municipality contracted ABC Construction, they cannot breach the contract to stop the construction either. The 1982 precedent case, Junior Books Ltd. v. Veitchi Co. Ltd. , displays another example of how someone’s negligence can cause economic damages. In the precedent case, a negligently laid floor, not dangerous, caused the plaintiff to suffer numerous losses such as replacing the floor and business disturbance . The defendant was later found liable and must pay the plaintiff for the profit loss of the time . It is evident from this case that one can be found liable because of his/her negligent act. This is clearly displayed by Acme Underground as their negligence with the sub-surface conditions report caused the Municipality to suffer an economic loss. Therefore, Acme Underground Ltd. is highly
In this essay about tort law, I talked about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do this, I provided a background of the event, applied facts of the case to applicable law, summarized lessons of the week as they related to this case and provided a plausible argument for the parties involved. This is a prime example of breach of a tort law and the case is currently in the process of litigation. It is likely that the parties involved will reach an agreement out of court but may in fact be brought to trial.
A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.
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.
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...
Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort.