Ace Cleanercompany

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

The focus of this case is negligence of the business owner, Wilhelm Curtis specifically. Per the text, there must the plaintiff must establish or prove the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty and damages proximately caused by the breach. (Cheeseman, 2013) Based on the scenario, there is a basis of negligence for the case. I do not find that there is a basis for gross negligence, due to the employer providing the protective gear. This demonstrated that the employer did act in more than momentary thoughtfulness, inadvertence, or error in judgement. (Legal Dictionary, 2016).

Negligence is upholding a certain leavel of care by determining if it meets the four components nessessary for a claim; duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case duty was not handled correctly. Duty means you agree to take care of a health care patients. THe girls working at the Good Samaritan Home did not take proper care of the residents. Breach of duty is broken down into four categories; Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance. In this case the breach of duty refers to nonfeasance. There was a failure to act, by no other employees bringing the ause to attention. Causation requires an injury to be due to the healthcare professionals negligence. In the case of abuse in the Good Samaritan case there was no other way the injuries could have happened. The damages refers to the injuries caused to the residents.

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

• Was the employee acting in the course of employment when the tort was committed?

Ms. Almanza claimed she researched and provided the claimant’s entire personnel file for this investigation and stated she was not aware of any industrial-related injuries associated with the claimants said injuries, by noting that no treating physicians ever provided any causation or the implied injuries. She provided proof with the claimant’s personnel file taken into as evidence by stating there was no medical evidence, doctors note or request of modified work duties to suggest any medical

It is likely that Mitch Landsing’s case against R. Thibodeaux Pharmacy will be successful under a theory of respondeat superior. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts his employee commits during the course and scope of his employment. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 441, 445(Mo. App. S.D. 2003). In order for an employer to be liable, there must be evidence that during the time of the negligent or omitted act, there was a master-servant relationship.; Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 157 161(Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 367, 359(Mo. 1963).

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?

Anyone providing a service to a home should be equally protect, which Betty was doing. Due to the fact that Betty was a social friend of the Barfknechts, it is questionable as to whether or not she should have been considered a social guest when entering the premises. If she had been considered a social guest, the courts would have made an exception against statute 895.52. the courts failed to find a duty that Sylvia and Arnold owed Betty and if there is no existing duty, then no legal liability can take place on account of negligence. Betty was unable to provide a breach of duty. This same situation occurred in Roland C. Feichtner v. City of Cleveland Et. Al. Feichtner filed a negligence claim against Cleveland and five construction companies, but was unable to establish a duty. Therefore, he lost his case.

This paper will discuss the legal issues in Case Example B. In the case of Wilbur versus XYZ Counseling Agency, the legal issue involves Wilbur suing XYZ Counseling Agency for being beaten during a counseling session by Chuck, who is an anger management counselor for the company. The plaintiff Wilbur believes that XYZ Counseling Company should be held responsible for the behaviors of their employees. Why did Chuck become angry and beat up Wilbur? Did Chuck violate the intentional torts against person? If so, which tort did Chuck violate? Did Chuck owe a duty of care to Wilbur? If so, was there a break of the duty of care? Why did XYZ Counseling Company hire Chuck with his history of negligence? If XYZ Counseling Agency has a specific policy against violence, why wasn’t Chuck disciplined accordingly for violating company policy? Should XYZ Counseling Company be held responsible for an employee’s act of negligence? For these reasons, before a decision can be delivered, there are a number of questions that need to be answered by the plaintiff and the dependent

This case, although it is not mentioned in the article, is an example of occupiers’ liability. Occupiers’ liability is a negligence tort that imposes liability on occupants of land for harm suffered to visitors of the property. For this case, Skyway can argue that as CCRL is an employer to Skyway, and that CCRL has entered a contractual agreement with the plaintiff, there is an established relationship between the parties. To further illustrate a relationship, Skyway was invited onto the job site to perform services for CCRL, thus making the plaintiff an invitee. The plaintiff is arguing that the defendant owes Skyway the standard of care to a safe working environment. As outlined in The Occupational Health and Safety (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System) Regulations, RRS c S-15 Reg 6 (“OH&S”), every worker has the right to a safe working environment. A safe workplace was not provided because of CCLR’s negligence in maintaining the environment. Facility pipes that were due for replacement in 2010 were not changed. There is an obligation for occupiers to ensure that reasonable steps are taken to prevent foreseeable injuries. As the pipe, which caused the explosion, should have been replaced in 2010, the defendant did not take reasonable action to prevent this event. As the plaintiff is an invitee, it could prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a higher standard of care, which was not met by the defendant. As it relates to damages, the plaintiff lost

The competence of the defendant is at the root of this relationship. The level of competency required in various steps in the legal system is very low. No one is required to have an extensive knowledge of the legal system. According to

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

There are countless cleaning businesses, all claiming that they can meet businesses and personal cleaning needs. Some that utilize all natural cleaning products, while others will use any available cleaning chemical to make a business or house sparkle. There are also cleaning companies that specialize in specific needs such as; commercial cleaning services, residential cleaning services, Airbnb cleaning services, even janitorial services. These specialties can be broke down even further, specializing in; carpet cleaning, air duct cleaning, window and screen cleaning, and anything else that needs to be detailed cleaned every couple of months. As a small business, analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats can be a vital

Dixon is raising debt capital by issuing long3 and short term bonds; an interest rate of