Advising the Potential Claimants on Any Claims in Negligence they Might Have

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

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: “The first question is whether the circumstances disclose reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to establish prima facie duty of care. The first inquiry at this stage is whether the case falls within or is analogous to a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The next question is whether this is situation in which a new duty of care should be recognized. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy consideration outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It is useful to expressly ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. This part of test only arises in cases where the duty of care asserted does not fall within a recognized category. The trial judge concluded that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in negligence and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring a class action”.

Qu. 1. Is Tavion’s mother’s statement of concern of abuse sufficient to warrant further investigation by the hospital?

“A factor, by itself, may not be sufficient to cause injury but if, with other factors, it materially contributes to causing injury, it is clearly a cause of injury.”. This quote, stated by Lord Salmon in McGhee v National Coal Board is an example of the difficulty that can arise when determining if a defendant had materially contributed to the plaintiff 's injury when the medical evidence is inconclusive. It is argued that the material contribution test has changed the path of the law and as we will see when analysing both McGhee and Fairchild, it has blurred the distinction between legal and factual causation.

In order to establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, there must be negligence on the defendant’s part that results in plaintiff’s harm. You have asked me to assume that there is negligence and only focus on harm. The Court found in Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hosp. physical harm does not have to actually be physical but must accompany emotional distress. 633 A.2d 605, 609 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993). Examples of this harm include long continued headaches, shaking, hyperventilation, severe depression, and nightmares. Id. (quoting Cirvellaro v. Pa. Power and Light, 491 A.2d 207, 210 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985). In Nordlund’s case, she did not see her sister get hit because of her degenerative eye disease, but she did hear the accident as it was occurring and as a result became severely depressed. R. 4. Her depression led to her indefinite leave from work, her nightmares, her diminished appetite, her uncontrollable shaking, and her hyperventilation. Id. Based on Armstrong, Nordlund could claim that she suffered harm from hearing Sumner get struck by Ms. Robert’s car.

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

This topic raises the question of whether Willow and Xander are held criminally liable for Larry’s death by assessing the possible offences and defences that may apply. In order to decide the extent of their criminal liability, if any, a number of criteria need to be considered.

The competency to stand trial is coming into question in the case against Deasia Watkins. The CBS news article illustrated a 20-year-old mother who has allegedly decapitated her infant daughter. The police arrived to find Watkins’ 3-month-old child decapitated on the kitchen counter in the home of the child’s aunt that was temporarily caring for the child. Watkins appeared to be suffering from mental issues when she was found in bed covered in her child’s blood. Watkins has to be sent for treatment and further evaluation at a psychiatric hospital with the intention to restore her competency so she will be able to stand trial on an aggravated murder charge in the death of her child. She was already considered a threat to the child and diagnosed with postpartum psychosis prior to the incident. Social workers found the child a home with her aunt, but were not aware that Watkins had moved in. Doctors have six months to restore her competency for a hearing in October to reevaluate her mental stability. Even after that evaluation doubtable question of whether or not Watkins was competent at the time of the murder of her infant daughter still comes to mind.

On August 6th, 2014, Eleanor Mingle, the mother of EE’s client, Hummel, died in an accident when one of the elevators EE had a maintenance contract on malfunctioned. Hummel saw Mingle get into the elevator, saw the elevator stop at the 9th floor, heard the elevator falling and somebody screaming, felt the building shake, and smelled oil burning. She did not know if Mingle was in the elevator at the time nor did she directly witness the injury occurring. Hummel sued our client in a cause of action for the Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, or NIED. This memorandum addresses whether Hummel can meet two of the elements of NIED. Hummel will likely be able to establish that she was closely related to Mingle and she was

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.

Alfie is afraid to fall short of expectations, so he relies on outside objects to make decisions for him. By doing so he is redirecting the blame and responsibility from

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

It can be concluded that Mr. Prendergast was acting negligently whilst driving his car, above the national speed limit, as confirmed by his insurers. Therefore Contributory Negligence is the basic issue to be consulted with the insurers who are claiming that Steven’s claim ought to be ‘substantially reduced’ due to the negligence on his behalf.

Claimant, on the balance of probabilities (51% or more), must prove that the negligence was a result of the injury, to establish causation. If this is successful, the claimant will be entitled to full compensation. If on balance of probability is 49% or less, the patient will not be entitled to damages. The issue in court was the difficulty to rely on the accuracy of the probability as evidentiary basis.

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.