In this essay we are able to identify the Law of tort and present a case from New Zealand covering tort of negligence and vicarious liability. The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin term tortem to twist and implies conduct which is twisted or tortious. It now means a breach of some duty independent of contract giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable. A Tort is a species of civil injury or wrong no civil injury is to be classed as a tort unless the appropriate remedy for it is an action for damages. It is usual to say that a person is liable in tort irrespective of whether or not a judgement for damages has been given against him. He is liable from the moment he commits the tort. There are categories of torts an Intentional torts …show more content…
Damages were not reasonably foreseeable and limitation period has expired. Secondly, Elements of negligent misrepresentation a duty of care exists based on a special relationship for example professional person and lay person who may reasonably rely on the professional person’s professional expertise. Professional person makes representation that is untrue, inaccurate or misleading. The representation is made negligently. Person receiving the representation relies on it in a reasonable manner and the reliance is detrimental and damages result. Defences for negligent misrepresentation no duty of care is owed for example plaintiff is not a member of the class of individuals that professional knew would rely on the misrepresentation. Plaintiff’s reliance is not a reasonable for example the representation was a part of a discussion and not a formal opinion or the professional limited liability through a disclaimer clause. Professional’s negligent misrepresentation did not cause damages and limitation period has expired. Vicarious liability in certain cases, one person can be liable for the harm cause by
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
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.
Jack’s case is an example of medical negligence. The physician that prescribed the prescription should have done a full physical and medical exam on the patient. Jack’s physician failed to ask if he was allergic to any medication. Before prescribing any medication one of the first questions should be what or if they are allergic to anything. Jack faced several health complications such as difficult breathing, turning red, and falling to the floor. He went into anaphylactic shock due to the fatal allergic reaction. The last encounter with Sulfa, Jack developed a rash due to the allergic reaction. Health professionals are required to undergo training
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
This assignment will evaluate murder, Homicide and will focus specifically on gross negligence manslaughter and diminished responsibility. It will explain the key rules and cases that are relevant to this aspect of criminal law. It will explain some of the rules using relevant statutes and/or case law and will show how the courts apply the rules of an area of criminal law in order to find a defendant guilty of an offence. This will be followed by an analysis of a relevant case and the law and statutes that are applicable. This leads the assignment towards a description of defences a defendant could use when accused of a gross negligence manslaughter. The final part of the assignment will be orientated towards changes made in the law over
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.
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).
but we do not blame him or her if the operation fails - we balance the
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.
To begin a claim in professional negligence, you must begin with establishing that there is a professional duty of care owed towards the plaintiff. The most significant case in relation to professional negligence is Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465. This is because for the first time, it established that a third party relying upon a statement made the him/her may be owed a duty of care by the maker of that statement. The outcome from the Hedley Byrne v Heller Partners (1964) established that a duty of care would be owed (in relation to statements) where there is a ‘special relationship’ between the giver and recipient of the advice or statement. Despite this, a definition for a ‘special relationship’ was not fully defined, however it tends to go by meeting these three requirements; a reliance by the claimant of the defendant’s special skill and judgement; knowledge, or reasonable expectation of knowledge on the part of the defendant, that the claimant was relying on the statement; and that it is reasonable in the ...
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
The English Law on Vicarious Liability An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the employer than directly compensating the claimant.
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...