The issue that this essay will deal with is whether Benedict has a claim in the tort of negligence and is entitled to damages. Negligence provides a remedy for claimants who suffer damage because of a person’s failure to use reasonable care. To succeed in a claim, the claimant must prove three vital elements.
The first hurdle to establish is that the defendant owed the claimant a legal duty of care. This can arise from an established duty situation such as doctor/patient or a defendant assuming responsibility towards a claimant. Generally, it will be obvious on the facts but, there are several tests to help recognize a duty.
Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle formulated in Donoghue determined a duty of care and, laid down the requirement
…show more content…
However, the duty situation is not so obvious in the circumstances, when on a field trip would she still owe this duty? yes, by taking the students on the field trip Jenifer voluntarily assumed responsibility towards the students .
The Caparo test will confirm this duty: It was reasonably foreseeable that the students would rely on Jenifer’s advice and may suffer personal injury because of that reliance. There is sufficient proximity between Jenifer and Benedict because of their close relationship. It would be ‘fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty’ on Jenifer but, may open floodgates to similar claims. It can be concluded; a duty is established.
Secondly, there must be a breach of duty, this is objectively assessed on the balance of probabilities. Firstly, in law how should the defendant have behaved in the circumstances? Secondly, in fact how did the defendant behave, and did there conduct fall below the reasonable standard of care
…show more content…
Additionally, benedict’s personal injury was a foreseeable consequence of Jenifer’s actions and not to remote.
Despite all of this said, the defendant can escape liability if they prove a valid defence. The defence of ‘volenti’ will completely distinguish a claim and concerns a claimant’s exercise of free choice by assuming the risk. The claimant must be aware of the risk and freely consented to it.
Arguably, Benedict had a free choice whether to accept the risk or not. However, the defence of ‘volenti’ would be hard to prove because debatably Benedict was unaware of the risk and so, could not have consented to it as Jenifer’s statement created a ‘false sense of safety’.
There is also the defence of contributory negligence which will reduce compensation payable. This arises where the claimant causes or contributes to their own harm by failing to take reasonable care for their own safety. This is assessed by asking what the reasonable person in the circumstances of the claimant would have done to avoid injury. For example, instead of jumping off an indoor climbing wall the claimant could have used the ladder as in the case of
On April 3, 2015, Tammy Cleveland sued Gregory C. Perry, a doctor at Buffalo General and Kaleida Health the company that owns both hospitals involved in the death of her husband, Michael Cleveland. Tammy is accusing them of “negligent” care resulting in her husband’s death. The law suit claims that the “defendants’ alleged actions and/or inactions were morally culpable, actuated by evil and reprehensible motives, malicious, reckless, gross, wanton and/or in reckless disregard for her husband’s rights and her family’s rights.” (Dudzik, 2015) The defendants are contesting the case. Michael Cleveland had a heart attack on October 10, 2014, and was transported to the emergency room of DeGraff Memorial Hospital.
This essay will be organized by answering the questions in chronological order; to which in the first question, I will be looking heavily into the case of R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie and Roach. It will incorporate the regulatory offences and the mental blameworthiness and how strict liability acts as a balance between the two. It will also include the defence of due diligence.
The University of Notre Dame argues that they do not owe Letitia Hayden a duty to protect her from the third party’s actions. The reasoning behind this was that the actions of a third party are unforeseeable, therefore Notre Dame owed Letitia Hayden no duty to anticipate the actions and protect her. Therefore, Notre Dame is not liable. Holdings
Everyday someone is injured because of someone else’s carelessness. Adam Futrell brings his extensive knowledge of injury law to fight for each of his clients. From one of the South’s most respected law firms, to the Attorney General’s Office,
Also, she will testify that practice for the year had commenced in June 2011 and the team practiced approximately 3-4 times per week. She will testify on the day of the plaintiff’s injury she was properly supervising practice and that she was only four to five feet away from the group when the injury
However, one must consider the egg shell skull rule which states the defendant must “take his plaintiff as he finds him.” What if attributable to her disease process she fell to her death while on
It is fathomable that it is an exceedingly difficult position to face and the decision the judge came up was equally challenging, however, there must be an alternative resolution. Whether we look to deontological the inquiry ethics and ethical decisions based on an emerging behavior the manner on this court case shed light on what is deemed “right” or the other hand who is honestly worth protecting. I have to irradiate that Immanuel Kant the German philosopher statement applies in this court case, “that all consequentialist theories missed something crucial to ethics by neglecting the concept of
In Cal’s case, on determining who he can file a lawsuit against and who would be liable for his injuries would be first be Anne. Anne goes first because she was the one that made the final impact and that incident was the one that cause Cal to loose both of his legs. So Cal can sue Anne, for being the reason he can’t walk now. Even though Cal was in a car accident minutes before that didn’t cause his legs just minor injuries. Anne would be liable for any and all expenses, any pain and suffering and also if the incident made him loose income from the injury.
These are examples of The Virtue Approach and The Rights Approach. In “Should I Protect a Patient
A Civil Action is a movie based on a true story about an epic courtroom showdown where Jan Schlichtmann, a tenacious personal-injury attorney files a lawsuit against two of the nation's largest corporations. He accuses, Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace Company for causing the deaths of children from water contamination by the illegitimate dumping of chemical wastes into natural water sources. The first issue brought up in this movie is concealing or misrepresenting of the truth also known as deceit. Deceit occurs when an individual withholds or misrepresents information by making false statements with the intent of altering another person’s position on a matter. In the movie, Jan does some personal investigations after he notices that there’s
Julian wants to sue David, the other player. In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball.
Explain what is meant by the term of 'duty of care': Duty of care is when we must follow the correct policies and procedures in order to protect and safeguard children from any harm. This means that we have a respnsibility to do daily health and safety checks on all equipment that children are likely to use encase any of it is broken, we must carry our risk assessments in order to make sure that all work areas and play areas are safe for children to use and also most importantly we must carry out fire drills so that children are familiar with the sound of the fire alarm, aware on where they have to go in order to reach safety and what they have to do. Upholding the rights of children and young people:
Health Care Law: Tort Case Study Carolann Stanek University of Mary Health Care Law: Tort Case Study A sample case study reviewed substandard care that was delivered to Ms. Gardner after having sustained an accident and brought to Bay Hospital for treatment. Dr. Dick, a second-year pediatric resident, was on that day in the ED and provided care for Ms. Gadner. Dr. Moon, is the chief of staff and oversees the credentialing of all physicians at Bay Hospital.
Foreseeability means whether a ‘reasonable person’ would have foreseen the damage in the situations. It is the leading test which is used to determine proximate cause. The important point is a duty of care may not be owed to a particular claimant, if a claimant was unforeseeable. Foreseeability and proximate cause will be discussed
The law of tort applies duties of the civil law in respect to a wide range of behavior which are relevant to a business activity, this area of law serves a very important role for consumers and those are doing business with them. As stated above in order to have a sure fire claim when claiming under the tort of negligence it is compulsory to fulfill the three requirement, the first requirement is the " duty of care " it is stated that whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care, is definitely a question of the law. it is always onus that the plaintiff establish the existence of a duty of care, but usually in most cases it is very straightforward to establish a duty of care, as long as it is provided that the relationship between parties falls within the duty of care for example a doctors owes a duty of care to his/her patients, or motorist owe a duty of care to the other road users, even architects owe a duty of care to the people who are occupying the specific building, these are just few examples of owing a duty of care. if the relationship between the parties does not fall within the established duties of care, than the plaintiff needs to be able to show the 2 things which are (1) '' it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant act or omission could cause harm to someone in the plaintiff's position ", which means that it the plaintiff must be able to show that during the time of the incident it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's code of conduct could cause harm to someone in the plaintiff's position.