Negligence, Liability, And Liability

Negligence, Liability, And Liability
QUESTION PRESENTED Concerns have arisen of a possible lawsuit involving an area of law
known as negligence and liability. This memo outlines the principles of this area of law in order to
be properly prepared should the firm face any legal consequences. It aims to illustrate under what
circumstances can the firm be affected with potential legal action in this area.
SHORT ANSWER
In legal context, "Negligence" is behaviour that falls below the reasonable standard of care and
"liability" refers to who can be held accountable for any damages occurred. Legally, the firm can
only be at risk if there is evidence that suggests negligent conduct and all four of the following
elements are met and proven: a duty of care is owed to an individual, the standard of care is not met,
damages have occurred, and the failure to meet the standard of care significantly contributed to the
damages that occurred. Along with negligence, there is a possibility of being deemed liable and
having to pay for damages. However, even if found negligent, there are tools that the firm use to
deflect or lessen liability such as vicarious liability, contributory negligence or voluntary assumption
of risk.
PRINCIPLES/TOOLS
Negligence
Negligence, in its legal definition (common law), is behaviour that falls below the standard of care.
Negligence can only be attributed if all four elements are present: a duty of care is owed, the
standard of care is not met, there is evidence of considerable damages and the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Evidence Of Negligence
There are three essential elements that are required for an action for negligence to considered. It
must first be established if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, that there was a breach of
that duty of care and that the plaintiff suffered a loss caused by the breach of duty. As Michael was
repairing a bike for a client, he did owe his client Paul a duty of care. As stated in the problem,
Michael was distracted and neglected to properly secure the front wheel after finishing his repairs,
this is a breach of the duty of care on Michael's part. Paul also suffered a loss caused by this breach
of care. This means that all three essential elements required are established for a case of negligence.
Further evidence of this is seen

Negligence Essay
| | ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET(adapted for LAW1100 major essay submission purposes) |
UNITCode: TITLE: | NAME OF STUDENT (PRINT CLEARLY) FAMILY NAME FIRST NAME |
STUDENT ID. NO. | NAME OF LECTURER (PRINT CLEARLY) | DUE DATE | Topic of
assignment | Group or tutorial (if applicable) | Course | Campus | I certify that the attached
assignment is my own work and that any material drawn from other sources has been
acknowledged. Copyright in assignments remains my property. I grant permission to the University
to make copies of assignments for assessment, review and/or record keeping purposes. I note that
the University reserves the right to check my assignment for ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
6.2 (insert your second sub heading here)........................................... 6.3 (insert your third sub
heading here).............................................
(insert subsequent sub headings here if and as necessary)
7.0 Conclusion ...........................................................................
8.0 End References and Table of Cases ..............................................
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This article will be written focused on the Topic Negligence and its three conditions which needs to
be satisfied on balance of probability such as Duty of Care, Standard of Care and the requirements
to prove that the causation of the damages suffered by the plaintiff was due to the act of the
defendant. The article would cover these elements and its components in detail to provide the reader
with a deep understanding on Negligence which is known to be one of the better known Torts.
Furthermore this essay will be written relating every components with cases to provide a better
knowledge to readers.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Negligence can be identified as one of many Torts. It is considered to be the most popular Tort.
Negligence can be briefly defined as failure to take care on something and another party suffers

The Tort Of Negligence Developed
A tort might be stated as a civil wrong not happening out of a contract or a relationship created on
trust, which is considered by a harm of the legal right preserved on others and an act for repressible
damages. Therefore the objective of torts is toward recompense the victim and not penalizes the
wrong person. Before we start a ride into in what way tort law operates it would be sensible to know
the nature of the torts committed and their growths over the years. This would not lone help in
considerate the current situation in a clearer manner but can also deliver a logic of history about
torts.
During the early primary 1800 's the tort of negligence developed as a single type of torts owed to
the fact that events in the tort of negligence were growing suggestively throughout that period. Then,
the awareness of the imposition of a duty of care in negligence developed alongside cases such as
Heaven v Pender (1883), and extra outstandingly case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) that remains
the leading case in negligence. This case clarifies that; Mrs Donoghue and her pal went to a cafe in
Paisley. At the cafe, Mrs Donoghues ' pal purchased her a drink which was a ginger beer float
consisting of ginger beer that stood in an cloudy bottle. After Mrs Donoghue drank out of the drink
in a beer cup, her pal topped up the drink, and then they found in the ginger beer bottle decomposed
leftovers of a snail. Mrs Donoghue claimed that the recalls of seeing the snail in the ginger beer

Negligence And Negligence : Negligent Torts
Negligence
Negligent torts are one of the most common types of tort cases. Negligent torts are cases that look at
the actions of an individual or company that are not deliberate, but more so when an individual or
company failed to act toward as a reasonable individual should, to someone whom he owes a duty
to. Negligence action found in this particular tort can lead to personal injuries or monetary damages.
The elements which constitute a Negligent Tort are defined as: a person must owe a duty or service
to the victim(s) in question, and the individual, or company, who owes the duty must violate the
promises or obligation; an injury then must occur because of the specific violation, and the injury(s)
cause, must have been reasonably foreseeable as a result of the person 's, or company's negligent
actions.
To prove negligence, plaintiffs have to demonstrate the four elements are present. First, they have to
establish that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff has to demonstrate the
defendant breached that duty. Third, the plaintiff has to prove the defendant's conduct caused injury.
Then finally, the plaintiff has to demonstrate legally recognizable injury (T & J, 2011).
I discovered a case that I personally found interesting; American Motorcycle Association v. Superior
Court, 20 Cal.3d 578, 578 P.2d 899 (Cal. 1978). This alleged negligence in this case where Glen
Gregos, a teenager, incurred a spine injury, he had his spine crushed in a

Memorandum Regarding Negligence
Memorandum regarding Negligence; Ragnarr Loobrok v the Australian Capital Territory
Due: 24th April 2017
Word Count: 1544 words (excluding headings and subheadings)
Hello Lagertha,
Below is the memorandum for the negligence action regarding our client, Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok. To
succeed in a claim of negligence, it must be proven that, on the balance of probabilities, that a duty
of care was owed by the State of Victoria to prevent him from getting arrested once his bail
conditions had been formally changed.
Was a duty of care owed by The State Of Victoria upon Mr. Ragnarr Loobrok to prevent economic
loss due to loss of opportunity?
For a negligence claim to be successful, it must be proven that the State Of Victoria owed our client
such ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently
experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this
case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence
obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another
element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to
extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving,
on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the 'but
for' test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by
the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and
therefore if they hadn't have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly
humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to
extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr.
Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach
within the scope of liability upon the

Examples Of Negligence In Nursing
In the healthcare setting nurses, doctors and the entire multidisciplinary team are without a doubt on
the frontline when it comes to exposure. Whether in the hospital or in the community there is always
an element of liability. In this particular discussion I will address nursing negligence, perfection and
standard of care, the four elements of negligence and the importance of documentation with regards
to nursing negligence.
The Nursing profession is a broadly debatable topic. In Ireland in particular the standard of nurses is
generally good but nurses at the end of the day are only human and naturally make mistakes. This
can lead to the issue of nursing negligence. According to Lee (2000) ''Nursing negligence is the
failure to provide ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is important to know that perfection in nursing is neither expected nor possible. However
excellence in the standard of care for a patient is. Perfection cannot be achieved. Nurses are not
machines. At the end of the day nurses can only do what they believe is best for the patient and if
failure is an outcome then they cannot be held accountable. The patient signs a consent form with
the knowledge that failure can always be expected regarding treatments. However it is the nurse's
duty to respond correctly to failures as a duty of care and carry out a high standard of care hoping
for the best possible outcome. Standard of care itself is more defined. It is derived from
organizational policies, procedures and those from regulatory bodies. Policies and procedures are in
place to define the minimum of staff members. They are merely guidelines and staff members are
encouraged to exceed the guidelines set out. It is the staff's responsibility to follow these guidelines
when in practice. Other sources such as documented and mandatory in–services days are also set up
to ensure significant knowledge of practice is in place, thus the standard of care is

Negligence And Its Impact On Society
Negligence is a tort that is a major focus point in how people and organizations interact with each
other. How the tort of negligence developed is critical for understanding who is held accountable
when a civil wrong has occurred. Negligence focuses on three basic elements: a duty of care, a
breach of said duty, and causation of damage. The goal of this assessment is to examine the
development of these three elements of negligence tort law in England, and hopefully explain its
significance in how it affects society. First, a duty of care must be established for a legitimate
negligence claim. The concept of a duty of care is that it demonstrates the defendant (the one
wrongdoer) had some sort of responsibility to take care of the claimant (the wronged party who is
bringing forth the claim). In English law, the landmark case that conceived the idea of establishing a
duty of care was Donoghue v Stevenson (1932 UKHL 100), a case involving a woman who drank a
bottle of ginger beer and found a dead snail in the bottle, thus bringing suit against the manufacturer.
The House of Lords ruled in the claimant's favor, stating the manufacturer does owe a duty of care
to the consumer. Arguably the most integral part of the ruling in Donoghue is where Lord Atkin
states:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would
be likely to injure your neighbor. Who, then, in law is my neighbor? The answer seems to be –
persons who are so closely and

Negligence Paper
It is human nature to make mistakes; however, mistakes that cause harm to someone else could be
considered negligence. In the case with Mr. Benson in the Neighborhood Newspaper article, a
mistake was made that was irreversible. He went into the hospital to have his leg amputated, and the
doctor amputated the wrong leg. The question is was the doctor negligent in his practice? Is the
amputation of the wrong leg considered to be malpractice on the doctor's part? This paper will
differentiate between negligence, gross negligence, and malpractice. After differentiating between
these terms, it will be determined if the doctor operating on Mr. Benson was considered to be
negligent, gross negligent or was this mistake malpractice.
To ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
25). Unfortunately, the article regarding Mr. Benson's case did not give detail on whether or not
proper documentation had occurred. However, one can assume documentation was not done
properly as the wrong leg had been amputated. If proper documentation had been completed in Mr.
Benson's case, it is possible someone besides the surgeon may have caught the wrong leg was about
to be amputated. An example of proper documentation would be the consenting of the patient for
surgery. Mr. Benson had to have been consented for surgery, which means a doctor or a nurse
practioner would discussed with the patient which leg was to be amputated, signs and symptoms of
complications and what to expect after surgery. If there was any question once the patient was in the
operating room, which leg to amputate, anyone could have looked in the patient's chart to see what
Mr. Benson had been consented for. Documentation of the time out could have also prevented Mr.
Benson from having the wrong leg amputated. The reason being is, everyone involved in the case
would have stopped and made sure the right patient was in the operating room and the right surgery
was to be performed so it could be documented this act was completed. Not only proper
documentation could have prevented this horrible act but also the help of the nurses could have
prevented a mistake like this from happening.
The use of ethical principles by the nurse

Examples Of Negligence In Healthcare
I think first and foremost it would be important to explain to the healthcare professionals what tort is
and how it can happen so that the healthcare professions can have a better idea of what exactly tort
is and how to avoid it happening ever again. Tort is defined as a civil wrong; it is something that
unfairly causes someone else to suffer a loss of harm resulting in legal liability. Torts are categorized
in several different ways; the most common ways are negligent and intentional torts.
Negligence is defined as a cause of action that can lead to damages, or to relief, it is designed to
protect legal rights. Through civil cases an injured person must prove that another person acted
negligently to cause their injury. It must be proven that it was a "careless" mistake. The elements
that must be established in every negligence case are, duty, breach, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Intentional tort occurs when the medical professional intends to hurt an individual but ends up
hurting another person in the process. Examples of both of these can vary; negligence can happen
when any careless act occurs. Some examples include misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, surgical
error, unnecessary surgery, malpractice, etc. This is very important to never allow this to happen so
that tort laws are not broken and the medical professionals are able to uphold their ethical standards
that they must meet.
Misdiagnosis can happen for example, when a patient is not notified about their cancer diagnosis
and ends up having a mistake in their diagnosis, the doctor may then be held liable for any further
injuries or damage.
Delayed diagnosis can happen when for example, a patient that has cancer is not notified
immediately about their illness and with the delay in the diagnosis, and treatment is must more
difficult and can then reduce the likelihood of the recovery for their

Negligence Case Study
In the state of Minnesota it is a landlord's duty "that the premises and all common areas are fit for
the use intended by the parties." Minn. Stat. 504B.161, subd. 1(1) (2015). Many negligence cases
have interpreted this law in different ways that rely on the specific conditions during the time of the
incident, and if the event was reasonably foreseeable and preventable. The foreseeability of an event
can be determined within a reasonable amount of care for the premises. Frye v. Huntington Point
Apartment Bldg., A05–2356, 2006 WL 1704234, 2 (Minn. Ct. App, 2006). Part of the reasonable
care includes a duty to inspect, repair, and inform tenants of dangers. Id. In order to win, one must
prove all four elements of a negligence claim: one, did the landlord have a duty to uphold; two, did
the landlord violate that duty; three, was someone injured; four, did the violation of the duty cause
the injury. Id. In regards to negligence claims that involve lighting, the key factor that needs to be
proven is whether or not the plaintiff could reasonably see what they were doing. Namchek v.
Tulley, 259 Minn. 469, 107 N.W.2d 856, 472 (1961). As well accumulations of water on stairways
are dangerous and if resulting from landlord negligence are the basis for a claim. Frye v. Huntington
Point Apartment Bldg., A05–2356, 2006 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In Namchek the main question that arose during trial was whether or not the lighting allowed the
tenant to adequately see what they were doing. Under the duty of reasonable care the landlord is
required to inspect, repair, or at least provide a warning of possible dangers. Frye, A05–2356, 2006
WL 1704234 at 2. Namchek v. Tulley, 259 Minn. 469, 107 N.W.2d 856 at 472. As well, even if a
landlord did not cause a dangerous situation, they are still liable they should of had "constructive
knowledge" of the situation. Frye, A05–2356, 2006 WL 1704234 at

How Liability For Negligence?
Discuss how liability for negligence can arise in law in relation to construction activity
Negligence in law can be defined as "a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of
ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances". Regarding the construction
industry it is of importance to understand the roles of the many skilled professionals involved, such
as the architects, quantity surveyors, engineers, project managers etc. Each of these professions have
a duty of skill and care, however no matter how cautious or adroit each professional is, there is
always the possibility and risk of something going wrong meaning they may be liable to their clients
and third parties for damage and loss through negligence. Establishing who's at fault and to what
extent can be a difficult task as claiming negligence against one profession will in turn involve
consideration of the potential negligence of anyone else who may have been implicated.
The purpose and use of tort
Tort can be seen when a wrongful act, whether intentional or unintentional, which causes injury and
can be remedied at civil law, usually through awarding damages. The Law of Tort enforces a legal
obligation on a party demanding them to take all care while performing any acts which could
foreseeably harm others. In regards to the construction industry, the case of Bryan and Maloney is
quite an iconic event when it comes to tort being remedied in the court of law. The high court held
that a

Liability For Negligence
Introduction
Litigation is becoming more prevalent in all areas of society, including education. Schools are now
the focus of an array of legislation which influences and impacts on the daily professional lives of
teachers. Subsequently, teaching is becoming an increasingly complex profession. The most
prominent legal concern expressed by teachers is their vulnerability to negligence claims, as they
work with those, who in the process of enhancing their physical, intellectual and critical abilities, are
more susceptible to injury.
Negligence is defined as "the omission to do something which a reasonable man...would do, or
doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do." The general principle is that
one should not harm those to whom they owe a duty of care, by act or omission. Action for
negligence is grounded on the breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care. To be actionable,
negligence must consist of four elements; a duty, breach of the duty, causation and injury. The test
frequently applied by the courts is that of a reasonable person placed in the defendant's
circumstances.
Liability for negligence cannot arise until "it has been established that the man who has been
negligent owed some duty to the person who seeks to make him liable for his negligence." Teachers
have a legal duty of care, due to the 'special characteristics' of the teacher–pupil relationship to take
reasonable care to ensure that students meet with no foreseeable injury

Negligence As A Tort ( Defitions )
1. INTRODUCTION
Tortious liability in negligence is a very amorphous topic which has evolved through many centuries
through different interpretations of case's by the jurist who decided them and tried to set a guideline
for rest of the world to follow them and so as to rights of everyone is enjoyed in an equal manner
without someone suffering because of actions of another's negligent conduct and if one does suffer
then he could have remedy for loss suffered by him. We look into negligence as a constituents of
torts and how negligence is defined by other jurist in the introduction chapter of this project. 1.1
NEGLIGENCE AS A TORT (DEFITIONS)
Negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the plaintiff.
More elaborate definition of negligence can be "A failure to behave with the level of care that
someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behaviour
usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a
duty to help victims of one 's previous conduct)."
According to Swayne J. of United States, "Negligence is the failure to do what a reasonable and
prudent person would ordinarily have done under circumstances of the situation."
The Supreme Court of India has also coined a definition in one of its judgement it observed that
"Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those

The Pros And Cons Of Negligence
Introduction.
Negligence is a central topic in the vast area of Law– Tort. It is largely due to Negligence being by
far most practiced by Tort lawyers with huge number of litigations each year. As per Sir Percy
Henry Winfield:
Negligence "is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the
Defendant to the Claimant."
In other words, it is a failure to exercise that degree of care, when law requires for the purpose of
protection of individuals, their properties and their financial interests. A duty of care is a legal
obligation to safeguard individuals who can be considered your neighbours from harm: (in your
care, your children, students, employees, etc.). For there to be a successful claim for negligence, ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Mr. Stovin, the Claimant, was knocked off his motorcycle by Mrs. Wise's car, the Defendant, and
became injured. The Defendant claimed that the accident occurred because visibility of traffic on the
junction was obstructed by a bank of earth with a fence. Thus, she claimed that Norfolk County
Council (NCC) failed to maintain the junction in safe to use order, and therefore were liable. In the
court of first instance the judge agreed that NCC owed a duty of care to the Claimant and were 30%
liable to compensate Mr. Stovin. Mrs. Wise was 70% responsible for compensation to the
Defendant. But on appeal to the House of Lords the Defendant NCC were found not liable. Held:
the Council were not liable on the basis of pure omission. In a space of twelve years there had only
been three accidents which was not enough to render that the junction was dangerous. The minimum
threshold for junction to be considered dangerous would need to have five accidents in a space of
three

An Essay on Clinical Negligence
An Essay on Clinical Negligence "We have always thought of causation as a logical, almost
mathematical business. To intrude policy into causation is like saying that two plus two does not
equal to four because, for policy reasons, it should not." (Charles Foster NLJ 5/11/2004 page 1644).
To what extent do you consider that Charles Foster is correct in that causation and clinical
negligence should be a "mathematical business" and the courts have, by introducing matters of
policy, confused what should be a logical approach?
Introduction:
In the article of "It should be, therefore it is"1, its author, Charles Foster examined the surprise
House of Lords judgment in Chester v Afshar2, what he described as "an exercise in ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the harm of the child's death would have occurred even if the doctor
had met her duty of care by attending the patient. Despite the court was not willing to settle for this
conclusion and instead enquired into whether the doctor's intended failure to intubate if she had
attended would have been clinically negligent in itself. This implies that it was considered by the
court at all is an indication that, if some serious harm has occurred, the courts will take into
considerations the entire circumstances of the case before coming to the conclusion as to whether
the causation requirement has been satisfied.
4. [1968] 1 A11 ER 1068.
5. [1997] UKHL 46, HL. The approach can be seen even more controversially in the 2004 case of
Chester v Afshar6, which Charles Foster has made his comment on as mentioned. This case
involved a doctor's clinical negligent failure to warn a patient about the risk inherent in a medical
procedure. There exists a need for the patient's consent to medical treatment to be fully informed.
The complication with respect to causation arose because the patient admitted that she would have
still undergone the surgery even if she had been warned about the risks of paralysis which
unfortunately materialized during the

Lucky's Negligence Case
Lucky's parent, the Spencers want to know whether they can successfully sue the camp for Lucky's
injury under a theory of negligence. Negligence is a failure to act as a reasonably prudent and
careful person is expected to act in a similar circumstances. The four basic elements of a negligence
case are duty, breach of duty, causation, and harm. We will have to see if Lucky's case meets any of
these elements. Eight year old Lucky was a camper from Camp Kid. Each year Camp Kid holds a
hike to the top of Spaghetti Mountain or Wise Hill. The campers chose to hike to Spaghetti
Mountain, which is consider to be more strenuous. There were fifty campers and two adult camp
counselors, they all climbed out the mountain together and made it to the top ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Camps always have many activities available for the campers to enjoy, but sometimes it's hard to
avoid an accident to occur. Sometimes we could get hurt just by walking and tripping over a small
rock, passing a ball or by playing any other sport. There will always be many risks you won't be able
to avoid. If you want to eliminate risks from sports, you would have to eliminate all sports. Without
sports, we wouldn't have anything to do, kids wouldn't be active, we would all just lay in bed, or sit
at home watching

Negligence Law And Negligence Case
Eric Kurss
Hospitality Law
December 5, 2014
Final Term Paper
Negligence
Rule of Law In the court of law, negligence can be described as an unintentional tort. Negligence is
a duty to the plaintiff (party which sues) that the defendant (party being sued) owes, based on a
breach of promise to exercise care and safety. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions
fell short of a "reasonable" standard. To prove a negligence case, there are several foundational
requirements that must be present in order to carry out a trial. The first being, one must establish a
duty of care, or relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The simplest form is one's
obligation to the world, in which you must act in such a way to not put another person in
unreasonable risk of harm. In the cases being presented, Fudge v. The City of Kansas City, and
Purton v. Marriott International, this duty of care is established as Delmar Henley and James Fudge
were citizens of the same town but did not know each other prior to the accident, nor did Dr. Jared
Purton nor Michael Landri (of Marriott) have a prior connection. The second step is to determine the
duty owed to the defendant. In our cases, monetary compensation were at stake. Proximate causality,
or primary cause of the sustained injury represents the third foundation, and an act from which an
injury results and ultimately answers the question as to whether or not the defendant's action is
closely enough related to the plaintiff's

Negligence Case
Issue:
The issue is whether Adam has a chance of taking legal action against Simon for negligence that
caused injuries to Simon after being hit by the batting helmet. This is after Simon threw the helmet
on the ground and it bounced back hitting Adam on the side of the head causing injury.
Rule and Application:
If injured people are able to prove that their injury was caused by negligence by another person, they
can recover damages to compensate for their injury or harm.
Historical approach from Donoghue v Stevenson
According to Lord Atkin's test, you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you
can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour?
persons who are closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in
contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions (Pentony,
B., Graw, S., Lennard, J., & Parker, D. 2012, P. 58).
(i) Reasonable foreseeability:
Would a reasonable person in the position of Simone have foreseen the likelihood of injury to Adam
arising out of Simon's behaviour?
As a player, Simon must be aware that the helmet can bounce on the ground and move towards a
certain direction. Due to his position in the game, he was close to the spectators and the risk ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The cause of the injury that was suffered by Adam is as a result of the actions of Simon. This means
that had Simon not thrown the helmet on the ground, it would have not bounce and hit Adam
leading to the injury. This is an indication that the injury was caused by the actions of Simon and
hence indicating that there was negligence on the part of Simon. Adam had only gone to watch the
game and was sitting where all the spectators are supposed to sit and therefore did not contribute in
any way to the injury. Without the fault of Simon, the injury to Adam would not have

Professional Negligence Case
1. Review the hypothetical scenario at the beginning of this chapter. Has professional negligence
been committed? What defenses can be raised?
In the case of the attorney who is a recent law school graduate, he can be held negligent "if" he had
no training or experience in automobile accidents claims, because failure to have skills and learning
commonly possessed by members in good standing within a profession, constitutes professional
negligence. In addition, "if" the lawyer failed to deliver competent professional service that resulted
in the client's suffering damages, then professional negligence can be charged as well.
Like in this legal disciplinary proceeding: Toledo Bar Association v. Hales, 120 Ohio, St.3d 340
(Sup.Ct. 2008), where

Negligence In Radiology
Everyone who works in the medical field can have mistakes happen to them, it makes us human.
The thing that makes it negligence is when that mistakes happens over and over, or you try to cover
up your mistake instead of making it known. Negligence means you fail to take proper care in a
situation. In radiation many things can go wrong, for example the patient you are going to see needs
an x–ray of the right hand and you x–ray the left hand, but you don't alert anyone of the mistake you
made that is considered negligence. May people fail to realize the implications that come with a
small error can cause a chain reaction. This is one of the challenges in this profession. This is my
research topic to investigate the negligence within in radiology, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
One of the most common mistakes is to missed diagnosed. "Failure to diagnose has been determined
to be the number–one reason that radiologists get sued; 75% of radiology lawsuits allege failure to
diagnose or failure to communicate in a timely manner." (Jones, S. (2011, May 11). With this being
said, this is why the radiology program is two years and also you have to pass your boards in order
to practice radiology in a hospital. " Not much of radiology is taught at undergraduate level in our
medical colleges. As a result of this, a sizeable number of medical practitioners are not acquainted
with the nuances of imaging modalities." (Sohoni, C. A. (2013, March 23). When you give an
incorrect diagnosis or failure to diagnose and they decide to sue you this can lead to medical
malpractice which means in other words negligence. When there is a case of negligence they have to
prove the following steps, duty of care owned by the RT, breach of duty occurred by the RT, cause
of injury due to negligence of RT and the injury actually occurring. Also the standard of care is often
questions if you provide the same attention and care to all of your patients. This is a multistep
system that reveals the truth of most scenarios. An example of this would be "The radiologist owed
a duty of care to the patient and breached this duty when he failed to notify him of his abnormal X–
ray." (Berlin, L. M. (2010,

Tort of Negligence
Question 1
What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences?
Issue 1––duty of care
The tort of negligence to be constituted depend on whether the defendant violate the principle of
'Duty 0f Care'. Because of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1], 'Duty 0f Care' has been
established in common law: 1. Defendant whether or not fulfill the duty of care. 2. That defendant
whether or not breached that duty. 3. whether Breach the duty of care is the main reason to resulting
in infringement. 4. Whether the plaintiff suffered virtual damage as a result of the breach.
the bank operators have a duty of care towards the customers if they should have known about the
danger around the workplace. in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Adelaide branch arrange its new junior recruits on its enquiry desk to serve new and existing
customers. two weeks ago, the manager was really satisfied. From the current situation, The new
staff are young and enthusiastic and situation was excellent and surprised. But if we follow the
situation that had developed we could found that since new recruits just like Sam was young and
lack experience, they might Looks efficient, but the quality of answers was low in fact. And the
trainee giving advice to customers actually owes a duty of care seriously which because that they
should know that the elderly man(plaintiff) intends to rely on the advice and the advice is a serious
nature that the elderly man can not afford the risk obviously. it is hard to believe that they have
enough strength of explanation to offer professional and accurate advice for the investors especially
for the investment consultancy work. Finally, the legal status of trainee remains controversial.
Sometimes can not properly protect their legitimate rights like the corporation whether follow the
minimum salary rules.
Issue 3––––Vicarious Liability
Was the brank corporation and the Adelaide branch manager liable for the negligence of its
employees(sam)？According to the common law that vicarious liability is expressed in three main
forms,

Examples Of Medical Negligence
Medical Negligence
Negligence means the breach of a legal duty to care. In wider sense it means carelessness in a matter
in which law mandates carefulness. Negligence is a predominant theory of liability concerning
allegations of medical malpractice. Medical malpractice occurs when a health–care provider
deviates from the recognized "standard of care" in the treatment of a patient. The "standard of care"
is defined as what a reasonably prudent medical provider would or would not have done under the
same or similar circumstances. Persons who offer medical advice and treatment implicitly state that
they have the skill to decide whether to take a case, to decide the treatment, and to administer that
treatment. This is know as implied undertaking ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Medical mistakes in the diagnosis and treatment of hospital patients are unfortunately among the
most common cases of hospital malpractice seen by malpractice lawyers. Misdiagnosis of the
patient's condition, improperly interpreted diagnostic tests, negligently performed surgeries and
medication errors are all examples of medical negligence and can all have devastating effects on
patients already admitted to a hospital with an illness or injury. This can be considered hospital
malpractice.
Understaffing of hospitals and overworking of hospital employees contributes to the dangers of a
hospital visit. Long delays in emergency rooms, as well as waiting for radiology tests and delays in
performing surgery can all permit a patient's condition to worsen. In addition, patients frequently
arrive at the hospital with one type of illness, and sustain an injury or infection in the hospital that
they never had before. Often these patients are in much worse physical condition leaving the
hospital than when they went in. Sometimes patients injured by a hospital in the case of medical
negligence require extensive treatments or multiple surgeries to

Five Elements Of Negligence
Whether Ben will be held liable of negligent per se for violating Texas's Environmental Protection
Laws provision regarding self–closing capped gas containers.
Rule of Law:
Negligence is the defendant's conduct (the exercise of an act or the failure to act), failing to exercise
the degree of care that a reasonable and prudent person in his position would exercise; and act in a
way that breaches the duty to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm to anyone in the plaintiff's
position, and the defendant's breach must be the cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The five elements of
negligence are: 1) Duty: Did the defendant owe plaintiff a legal obligation to exercise some level of
care? 2) Breach: Did defendant's conduct fail to meet the obligation owed to the plaintiff? Regarding
the foreseeable risks created by the defendant's conduct, was the act unreasonable under the
circumstances? 3) Factual Causation (Cause in Fact): Is there a causal connection between the
defendant's unreasonable act and the plaintiff's injuries? 4) Proximate Cause (Scope of Liability):
Was the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The court would apply negligence per se when the plaintiff proves whether the statute satisfies class
of persons, by showing that the plaintiff belongs to the class persons the statute was designed to
protect, and class of harms, by showing that the plaintiff's injuries is the type the statute was
designed to prevent. According to the fact pattern, the Texas's Environmental Protection Law
provision in question, was intended to protect the environment, like the atmosphere and ground
water sources; not the plaintiff. As for the class of harms, the statute was meant to prevent "vapors
that cause greenhouse gases form escaping into the atmosphere or ground water sources and to
protect against spillage that can also contaminate ground water;" not the burns suffered by the
plaintiff. According to the test, the statute would not be

Negligence Case
In order to make a prima facie showing of negligence, a plaintiff must show: "'(1) that the defendant
was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3)
that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted
from the defendant's breach of the duty.'" Todd v. Mass Transit Admin., 373 Md. 149, 155 (2003)
(quoting Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Cnty., 370 Md. 447, 486 (2002)). The first question–that
is, whether and the scope of any duty the defendant owed to the defendant–is a legal determination
that is to be resolved by the court. Valentine v. On Target, Inc., 353 Md. 544, 549 (1999)
("Generally, whether there is adequate proof of the required elements ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
See Restatement of Torts (Second) § 315 (1965) (no duty to control third person's conduct so as to
prevent physical harm to another unless a special relation exists between actor and third person, or
between actor and the other.)'" Valentine, 353 Md. at 551–52 (1999) (quoting Scott v. Watson, 278
Md. 160, 166 (1976)); see also Nigido v. First Nat'l Bank, 264 Md. 702 (1972) (no duty of a bank to
protect customers shot by robbers during holdup).

Minimum Degree Of Negligence
Probably not. Because the standard of care employed by the relevant statute is "a minimum degree
of care," the CWS has a burden of proving that Ms. Ryan failed to exercise more than ordinary care,
and that her act was grossly negligent. The degree of negligence necessary to find an act to be
grossly negligent is generally measured by the nature of the act that is willful and wanton. Ms.
Ryan's conduct undoubtedly demonstrates her inattentiveness and a certain degree of negligence
because she left her very young children unsupervised in her apartment where they are only 8 and 4
years of age respectively. However, more likely than not, the court will hold that her neglectful act
does not give rise to the extent of gross negligence because Ms. Ryan depended on the babysitter to
show up very shortly based on the fact that she was almost always punctual. Additionally, young
children often cry and it is common for a 4–year old to wet her pants regardless of the fact that a
parent pays the closest attention possible to the child. Ms. Ryan will have to concede that she was
careless to leave the stew simmering on the stove when she left the apartment, yet, the court will
likely find that this was not done willfully and wantonly as she intended to prepare the dinner for her
children to ensure that they were going to be fed. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Ryan's failure to properly care for her children is not the result of her willful and wanton act, thus,
she did not fail to exercise a minimum degree of care as required by the

Summary: The Tort Of Negligence
Section 2: The Tort of Negligence
There are number of civil wrongs and torts, the most widely known being negligence (Stauntan,
2013). The negligence can be referred to as 'failure to provide sufficient care' through an act or
omission. Nurse negligence occurs where there's a breach of a nurse's duty of care and they fail to
meet the standard of care (Atkins, 2014). In order for nurse's action to be negligent, four conditions
must be met that is: the nurse must have a duty of care towards the patient, there is a breach in that
duty of care, harm resulted to the patient and the harm is foreseeable ( Atkins, 2014).
In the case of Mrs. McKay–Hall, the State Coroner Alastair Hope was critical of the "inexcusable
failure" by her doctor and nurses ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
McKay–Hall, she expected to receive help from the nurses and she expected to recover while she
was in hospital. Instead, Julienne's condition even got worst and she was not looked after well
during her hospital stay. According to Johnstone (2007) the principle of non–maleficence imposes
on nurses a stringent duty not to injure their clients or patients and avoid causing them to suffer in
any way. However, all the nurses looking after Julienne between 10 November 2007 and 12
November 2007 showed negligence in one or the way. For instance. Communication about the
abnormal vital signs was inadequate among the hospital staff and consequently, the health of the
deceased suffered. Similarly, the principle of Beneficence encourages the act for the benefit of other
and promote welfare and wellbeing (Johnstone, 2007). Nurses who were looking after Julienne
during her post–operative stay in hospital, most likely breached the standards prescribed by the
principle (Beneficence) by overlooking the deceased's alarming deteriorating condition as she
approached multi organ failure and not taking her observations regularly and

Negligence
Negligence refers to failure to act with a reasonable caution that causes an injury or death of a
person. For example, in this case the failure to put a "wet floor" sign is considered an act of
negligence, because the person responsible for putting the "wet floor" sign failed to act with care.
There are four elements that determine negligence and they are as follow: "a duty to use due care,
breach of the duty of due care, actual cause of injuries or damages and the proximate cause of
injuries or damages". In this case, Michelle failed to act with negligence when she forgot to display
the "wet sign", which caused Paul to fall and break his ankle.
Frist element of negligence refers to duty of due care. This means that we, people, have an
obligation

Wilhelm Negligence Case
In this introduction of the case, we see that there was a question on the floor being asked about if
Wilhelm acted negligently by failing to remind Flores of the dangers of working with beehives. I
read this case twice and speculated on if Mr. Curtis Wilhelm acted negligently in failing to warn
Flores of the dangers of functioning with beehives because John Black provided Santos with a
protective suit to have as you're picking them up. So, after realizing Wilhelm nor his compliance that
was John Black, didn't mention how difficult it is to operate beehives, he did act negligent in failing
to communicate with Santos on the dangers of working with beehives. "The core idea of negligence
is that people should exercise reasonable care when they

Negligence Essay
Negligence is used in tort in order to provide a remedy for those who have suffered any loss or
injury, due to a defendant's actions. If a defendant had a duty of care towards the claimant, then a
remedy can be enforced to cover for any losses. Factual causation in negligence establishes whether
it was the defendant in fact who caused the harm, in order to determine the factual causation, the 'but
for' test is used. The 'but for' test includes asking the question of 'but for the defendant's
carelessness, would the claimant have escaped harm?' The factual causation would be determined if
the answer is 'yes', as harm would have not occurred if the defendant did not breach the duty of care.
If the answer is 'no' then the defendant would not be held liable. The 'but for' test states that "X is the
cause of Y if Y would not have occurred in the absence of X". An advantage of the 'but for' test is
that it allows the defendant to take full liability, if their actions were the cause of harm to the
claimant. Once an answer is obtained through ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is known as the loss of chance. Hotson v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987 case illustrates
the use of the 'but for' test clearly as well as the loss of chance. While climbing a tree, a boy fell and
injured his hip. The doctors who treated him were negligent, due to the fact that they did not
recognise the condition of vascular necrosis during the first visit and sent him home without
diagnosis. However, the boy was correctly diagnosed a few days later but paralysis still occurred.
The 'but for' test was used here as it was stated that if the doctors had diagnosed the boy properly the
first time, then there would have been a chance of 25% that the condition would not have occurred.
This case illustrates clearly that the claimant needs to pass the 'but for' test and successfully prove
factual

Negligence And The Negligence Tort Essay
Introduction
Negligence is "conduct causing damage to another, in breach of the defendant's duty of care owed to
the other" (pg 425 Terry and Giugni (8.10).) This definition states the defendant is responsible
towards the plaintiff, if a breach of recognized standard of duty is not adhered to and the plaintiff
suffers an injury as a result. A liability may incur if the resulting injury could have been prevented or
foreseen. The defendants and plaintiffs both have their opinions and views towards the negligence
tort, and it will be looked into further detail in the "Jack and Thea Holiday Tour" case.
In order to completely understand the liability in negligence, there must be reasonable foreseeability
present which includes three main "elements of negligence" They are Duty of Care, Breach of Duty
and Remoteness of Damage (pg436–437 (8.220) Terry and Giugni) In addition the plaintiff must
also satisfy the four traditional elements of negligence in order to have a claim; (pg 431 (8.140)
Terry and Giugni)
Part A
Duty of care
In the tort of negligence it is important to recall the 1932 House of Lords case, Donoghue v
Stevenson AC 562 (pg. 435 (8.200) Terry and Giugni). The case outlined that duty of care must be
shown towards the other, as if the other does not anticipate the risk, they would potentially suffer
injury or death. According to the law, Priscilla Tours is liable for any maltreatment caused by their
tours towards its customers, hence why Jack and Thea have the

Negligence Of Negligence Falls Under Tort Law
.0 Introduction Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or
prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law
where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort
is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is
awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the
defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007).
Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that
are as near as possible to the plaintiff's loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing
something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what
a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.
2.0 Background The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable
care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other
people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of
property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have
been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke,
2005). There is more to

Examples Of Negligence In Sports
Upon being injured in his first rugby game, Jim Smith decided to sue his university for negligence.
He believed that the school did not provide him with proper medical attention upon suffering a
concussion during his game. Negligence can be defined as "failing to do something that a
reasonable, prudent, and up–to–date person would have done under the same/similar conditions or
doing something that a reasonable, prudent and up–to–date person would not have done"
(Dougherty, Goldberger, & Carpenter, 2007, p. 187). Despite these acts being unintentional, one can
seek compensation from the courts under tort law. For a tort lawsuit to be successful, it must have all
four elements of negligence: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and loss. The ... Show more
Waivers are legally binding contracts which states that the coach or whoever else is in charge is not
liable for any injuries. These hold up as defense in court, unless it is applied to gross negligence.
Jim's case files under gross negligence since the school made a "conscious and voluntary disregard
of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to
persons," ("gross negligence," 2008). The University made the conscious decision to not make sure
that there was medical assistance at the rugby game, knowing that some type of injury was bound to
occur. Despite the school committing gross negligence, the school still has the defense of
assumption of risk. It means that an individual recognizes that an activity comes with certain
inherent risks. Inherent risks are risks that "cannot be eliminated without fundamentally altering the
very nature of the activity" (Dougherty et al., 2007, p. 190). Rugby by nature is a violent contact
sport, where the players have almost no padding to protect them. The only way to remove some of
the risk of it would change the sport entirely. Given that Jim voluntarily decided to participate, was
aware of the nature of the sport & what risks went along with it, and that his injury possibly could
have come from the inherent risk not the negligence, the

Three Elements Of Negligence
INTRODUCTION
Negligence can be defined as the failure to behave with the level of care that a reasonable man
would have taken to avoid any mishappening. The behaviour generally consists of action but can
also consists of omissions when a duty to act is needed.
Concept of negligence and in the contest of master servant relationship
WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE??
Negligence can be defined as breach of duty of care that results in loss or injury to other person.
Negligence occurs when a person uses less than reasonable care to protect others from harm. When
a person is given a duty of care, then he or she is alone liable for breach of care.
The duty of care that one person owes to another depends on the situation ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
These are elements which are required for an act to be proved as negligent act. They are– A breach
of the duty of care, usually caused by failing to act with reasonable care. The breach of duty's being
the proximate cause of the injury. In other words, but for the breach, the injury would not have
happened. Injury caused by the breach of duty can be mental, physical, emotional, financial as long
as it is a kind of injury that can be compensated by paying money as damage. A duty of care that
exists between the injured person and the negligent person, requiring the negligent person to act
with reasonable care to prevent another's injuries.
VICARIOUS LIABILTY
Generally a man is liable for the wrongs committed by him. But there are certain cases where a
person is held liable for a tort committed by another.
The word vicarious liability means delegated. Thus the phrase vicarious liability, means the liability
of a person for the tort of another.
The principal instance is liability of an employer for the harm caused by an act or omission of
someone doing work for him.
For the present law divides persons working for others into two groups, servants and independent

Amusement Park Negligence
Amusement park owners are also required to have policies and practices in place that a reasonable
amusement park would have in order to ensure the safety of guests. Failure to have these policies in
place or to take care in hiring amusement park employees can result in a general negligence lawsuit
against the amusement park. In addition, when amusement park employees are negligent in
operating the rides or ensuring guest safety, their negligence is considered to be the negligence of
the amusement park itself because of legal rules referred to as vicarious liability or agency laws.
Since the park becomes responsible for the negligence of its employees, people who are injured as a
result of improper ride operation or other related causes may ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
All four of these elements have to be shown in order to recover on a negligence claim.
To put it simply, when an amusement park owner or operator fails to maintain the park or its rides in
a safe way, it can be considered in breach of a legal duty owed to customers under premises liability
law. This negligence can make the amusement park owner responsible for any injuries that result,
and the owner may be liable for medical costs, lost salaries, damages for pain and suffering and
emotional distress, and wrongful death damages based on lack of appropriate warning
To sum it up, the negligence legal theory rests on the notion that an amusement park is responsible
for providing customers with a safe environment. The amusement park is responsible for the actions
of its employees. So if an employee is negligent, injured parties may sue the park for that
employee's actions. The park or its employees may be negligent by affirmatively doing something or
by failing to do something. Examples include: failing to post clear warning signs that, for example,
customers with blood pressure or heart problems should not go on a ride –
posting signs that don't adequately warn riders of the risks

Should There Be A Tort Of Negligence?
Whether or not David Graham slammed into Liam Madigan intentionally or not this situation is still
considered to be a tort because a tort defined is a civil wrong that interferes with one's property or
person. However, in the text it mentions that David was preparing to throw a snow ball at his 14
year old brother, therefor it could have been an accident. If in this case David was simply being
careless while playing with his brother, then this constitutes the tort of negligence. Regardless of
performing an unintentional act or not David should have been more alert of his surroundings
especially since he was in a public ski area. If David accidently caused an injury towards Liam, then
yes it is definitely considered negligence. However,

Negligence In Medical Insurance
When someone fails to act with reasonable care, it is considered as negligence. If you have suffered
injuries because of that person's negligence, you have full right to file for personal injury claim with
the help of Personal Injury Lawyer Woodbridge. Through this claim, you can make the negligent
party to repay for the damages you have suffered. These damages include the medical expenses, the
lost wages as well as compensation for your various pains and sufferings. It is difficult to decide on
the amount for your damages especially if there is a need for future treatment too. Your detailed
medical records and the various examinations are of great help in revealing this process as also the
extent of injuries you may have suffered. As your Injury Lawyer Woodbridge will explain to you,
your medical records have the ability to provide unchallengeable proof for your damages. The
various records such as the records from your doctor's office, hospital, physical therapist and your
other health care providers show the various injuries you have suffered. These records also reveal
the seriousness and the extent of your injuries. How severe your pain is, what type of treatment was
given to you and how your life has been affected are revealed by these medical ... Show more
The medical examination is done by the doctor hired by the insurance company. The hired doctor
will examine you and then report his/her findings to the insurance company. The doctor may also
ask for the x–rays and laboratory tests to support his/her findings. The report will contain the details
of the extent of your injuries, their effects on your life and the type of treatment you may require in
future. Once these reports are available, your Personal Injury Lawyer Woodbridge can always
contest them, if there are discrepancies in the reports and your

Negligence Or Strict Liability?
Negligence or Strict Liability? A Study In Biblical Tort Law
The Bible, specifically, the Old Testament, provides numerous examples of torts and the remedies
afforded for such offenses. The Bible is also the guide for moral conduct, with the best example
being the Ten Commandments. In the Old testament, there are multiple references to moral and in–
moral behavior, torts, civil and family matters. Exodus 21:18–22:6, provides the best examples of
tort law in biblical times. To that end, the instructions communicated directly from God to Moses to
"set before" the Israelites (21:1). They are as follows: 1. Men Quarrelling (21:18)
2. The Goring Ox Scenarios (21:28–32)
3. The Uncovered Pit (21:33–34)
4. The Grazing Cattle (22:5)
5. The ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Another issue is damages, particularly for a human life. It appears that there is no payment sufficient
for real "damages," yet one can be "redeemed." When damages involve property, it is handled much
differently, depending upon the level of moral responsibility. In modern society and negligence, the
loss of life at the hands of a negligent party, carries punitive or a greater monetary value depending
upon the circumstances causing the loss of life. An example, a motor vehicle operator causes an
accident, which resulted in loss of life. It was later determined the vehicle operator was driving
while under the influence and the blood alcohol level was over the legal limit. Because of their
blood alcohol level, the monetary compensation and value of the cause is much higher due to the
egregious behavior and decision of the operator to drive while under the influence. In this scenario,
one could argue both strict liability due to the driver operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence as well as the operator's negligent behavior in the operation of the motor vehicle.
The Uncovered Pit (21:33–34): In looking at modern day negligence, a reasonable, prudent person,
having knowledge of a pit that poses a potential hazard, should take every precaution necessary to
prevent injury or harm to another. Having knowledge of the pit, in essence satisfies some degree of
strict liability; however, the negligence aspect

Negligence In Sports
Negligence is a law that is used throughout today's society as one of the most sought after methods
of suing people and corporations. This law of negligence falls under tort law and is often the most
common legal issue faced in sporting. By defining, investigating and evaluating the issue of
negligence presented in the given sporting scenario; analysing the concerns of various stake holders,
there will be recommendations made that justify a suitable legal response while still considering the
elements of negligence. The above topic which entails the act of negligence on the sporting field is
seen as a more common issue with sporting players becoming more and more worried about having
legal action perused upon them. This is seen as an imbalance ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Where cases that are being fought for compensation through the act of negligence there are many
defences that can be used that are suitable to both parties agreement. Common defences include
"Volenti non fit injuria" which the voluntary assumption of risk by the defendant; contributory
negligence and the illegality of the activity or act committed. "Volenti non fit injuria" is a common
law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm
might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim
against the other party in tort or delict. Contributory negligence in common–law is another defence
used in jurisdictions and is generally a defence to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. This
principle is relevant to the determination of liability and is applicable when plaintiffs/claimants
have, through their own negligence, contributed to the harm they suffered. The statement of players
in sport unwilling to participate due to the risk of being taken to court for an injury they may have
accidentally caused that might occur during a sport is expected; as injuries that happen while
engaging in an activity of which you know there is risk involved is

Negligence, Liability, And Liability

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Diana Oliva

More from Diana Oliva (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Negligence, Liability, And Liability