A Trot of Negligence

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

Lambert’s Café Inc. (“Lambert’s Café”) will be held liable and found negligent for damages sustained by Troy Tucker (“Ms. Tucker”) as a result of food thrown at plaintiff while visiting the establishment. In this case, it was substantiated that the plaintiff was injured by the roll thrown by Ms. Garrett, an employee of Lambert’s Café who was, at the time of injury, working on behalf of the restaurant. The issues to look to then are: Did Lambert’s Café owe Ms. Tucker a duty of reasonable care? If Lambert’s Café did owe plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, was it breached by the throwing of the roll that resulted in permanent injuries sustained by Ms. Tucker?

Our text defines a tort as “a civil wrong” and negligence as “a tort, a civil or personal wrong” (Pozgar, 2012). Negligence as it is related to healthcare is an unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person or organization would or would not do under normal circumstances. Not following a recognized standard of care could be considered negligence. The case I have chosen to study is one from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Maryland and is that of Enso Martinez a minor by and through his parent (Rebecca Fielding) vs The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland July 2013. I would describe this as a landmark, “David vs Goliath” case

Negligence is the most common type of liability case that healthcare organization face. It often occurs when a person fails to hold up to the accepted standards of behavior. There are four elements essential to proving negligence: 1. a duty of care, Duty is a legal obligation the defendant owes to the plaintiff. In a negligence case the duty is most commonly expressed as a general obligation to act with care in other words to conduct oneself as a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances. 2. Breach of that duty: A breach of duty occurs when one person or company has a duty of care toward another person or company, but fails to live up to that standard.  A person may be liable for negligence in a personal injury case if his breach of duty caused another person’s injuries. Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witness which is usually the same witness who established the duty in the beginning. 3. injury: Damage or harm

In order to prove a negligent case, the plaintiff must prove the following four elements of negligence: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, (2) the defendant breached this duty of care, (3) the plaintiff suffered injury, and (4) the defendant’s negligent act caused the plaintiff’s injury. Firstly, Dr. Douglas owed a duty of care to Tara and her family. According to Essentials of Business and Online Commerce Law, “Duty of care refers to the obligation we all

The five elements of negligence that apply to the case of Mr. Margrieter V. New Hotel

Negligence is a tort law and it falls within the civil law which means a civil wrong has been committed (Tort and Negligence, 2012). The American civil justice system, defines the law of torts as situations that occur when the wrongful conduct of one party causes harm to another individual (WiseGeek, 2003). The responsible party fails to act as a reasonable person to someone to whom she or he owes a duty, as required by law under the circumstances. Negligent torts are not committed purposely, and there must be an injury that occurs from the breach of the duty (Negligent Tort Law, 2014).

Rule: The tort of negligence will apply once it has been established that a duty of care was owed, there was a breach of that duty, and damage resulted from that breach.

A) Negligence is a situation in which a person acts in a negligent manner which leads to some other person getting hurt or someone's property being damaged. A negligent person after being proved so in court is legally liable to pay for any damages caused due to his/her careless attitude/actions. However, to prove that a person was negligent the plaintiff must provide evidence that the defendant had a Duty--the defendant was dutiable to the plaintiff because of which he had an obligation to act in a particular manner(not to fire his gun at an unseen target); was there a Breach of duty-- whether he failed to fulfill his obligation to act dutifully; what was the Proximate cause— were the defendant's actions the cause of the plaintiff's injuries; and what were there Actual damages—did the defendant's actions

The area of law is Negligence and the issue is Adams (Plaintiff) injuries and his chances of success in any legal action he might take in negligence against Simon (Defendant). The question to be taken into consideration is that;

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

Tort law, referring to negligence is the act of breaching the duty of care and causing some sort of damage. The failure to exercise the care as a reasonable person would in a certain circumstance. There are three elements that make up this tort, duty of care, breach and damages.

As I review the case from this week I notice a few things. Make is suing the bank because he fell. Under Tort Law he can file the suit because he is trying to seek monetary damages due to negligence. Don’t know if the Injury requirement has been met to be able to recover damages. Causation is the fact that the janitor who should have been closely supervised was not therefore used to much wax causing Mark to fall. Even if the jurisdiction did recognize assumption of risk or contributory negligence due to the fact that Mark didn’t know he was entering a risky situation therefore they can’t say Mark knew the risk. Comparative negligence can be used because of the fact that the bank didn’t supervise the janitor and they knew he should have been