Analogical Reasoning

One of the strengths of this approach is that it looks at thought processes which are ignored by other psychologists. Such processes are memory, attention and perception and have been studied to have an effect on behavior.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

The fact that we link things that are similar and treat them like a group is the Law of Similarity. We tend to group similar shapes together and often times, we try to attach some type of meaning to them. Grouping can happen both visually and auditory.

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.

Other causes of actions in the personal injury complaint - which is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstance. Another cause of action is strict product liability, which is that strict product liability is a legal rule where the distributor or manufacturer of a defective product is liable to a person injured by that product regardless of whether the defendant did everything possible to make sure the defect never happened. Another cause of action is design defect which is when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design by the seller and the omission of the alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe. Another cause of action is failure to warn which is when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the provision of reasonable instructions or warnings by the seller or distributor.

(Clohesy cite.) In Clohesy, a supermarket shopper was kidnapped and later murdered in the supermarket parking lot. CITE. The court held that defendant was liable to plaintiff because the defendant knew that in the two and half years prior to the kidnapping, criminal activity had been increasing in the neighborhood. The court reasoned that under the totality of circumstances, sound public policy, and fairness, the defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm because although no one had previously been murdered during a criminal activity, criminal activity of some kind was foreseeable and it was the duty of the business owner to provide some measure of security in the parking lot. Just as in Hopkins, where the broker failed to exercise care by inspecting the property for defects that would have caused injury and foresaw that an invitee may get injured. (CITE HOPKINS). The court held the broker had a duty to warn of any such discoverable physical features or conditions upon inspection of the property that pose a hazard or danger to such visitors. (Hopkins

Businesses could be held liable for negligent tort if their product injury, harms consumers or is falsely represented. Nonetheless, when the circumstances warrant, parties that are not guilty of negligence or an unintentional tort can still be subjected to compensations when their products injure customers (Seaquist, 2012) Recall Negligence is an unintentional tort wherein one party is injured result to some actions of another. There are certain factors that must be considered to determines whether a corporation acted negligently. The elements are the following: a breach of that duty, legal duty to use due care, a reasonable close causal connection between the breach and the plaintiffs resulting in injury, and the actual loss or damage to the plaintiff. This paper is going to discuss a negligent tort due to a company’s recall of its product. The company may be considered liable for negligence if there was no recall on their product and the product caused bodily harm to a consumer (Benjamin, 2015). Throughout the paper will discuss the reason of Toshiba recalling their laptop computer battery packs due to burn and because of its potential to catch fire on March 30, 2016 and the recall number is 16-131. If the company did not make the decision to recall their laptop computer battery could have been diligent. To prove the negligent tort the consumer must prove factors such duty to care and defenses of negligence (Seaquist, 2012).

It is alarming to know that each year there are over 4,500 scaffold injuries and 65 deaths (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], 2016). In addition, there is a high risk for construction workers to be struck from objects falling off scaffolds. With these facts in mind, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission’s (OSHRC) 2013 case of the Secretary of Labor v Performance Contracting, Inc. (PCI) raises questions as to why violations of OSHA’s scaffold standards are sometimes considered “other-than serious.” Understanding that OSHA gives the Secretary of Labor the tasks of rulemaking and enforcement of its rules, it also gives the task of carrying out the legal process to the commission which both parties accepted, as well as PCI “engaging as a business affecting interstate commerce” (Secretary of Labor v. PCI, 2013, pp. 2-3). Knowledge of the case’s background, parties involved, arguments presented, cases used to reach a verdict, and final ruling provide insight to the penalties assessed, significance, and personal opinion.

The jury in this case concluded that C.H. Robinson was vicariously liable based on agency and entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the amount of $23,775,000. $7.25 million went towards Sander’s claims, $8.75 million went towards Sperl’s claims, and $7.78 million went towards Taluc’s claim for injuries under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Vicarious liability assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Since C.H. Robinson and Dragonfly had a contract, the two companies

Small injuries or damages may occur when products malfunction, death may occur, or there could be damage done to ones property. The company could face possible lawsuits and in order to prove negligence, an individual must have had a duty of care, which is defined as having responsibility to act in the best interest of another. A company must always be ready to defend itself in all the possible issues that may arise and cause any form of lawsuit (WiseGeek, 2003).

Product liability law is noteworthy given the variety of defects covered, i.e. defects in design, manufacture, or warning, as well as the variety of types of liability ranging from strict liability to breach of warranty, negligence, or the battery type. given that the different theories of product liability provide or allow different types of defenses as well as damages, plaintiffs have flexibility when determining how to proceed with a

In arguments, manufacturers will still use many of the traditional defenses of product liability cases, but the lack of human drivers lessens the importance of the comparative negligence defense. Instead, the "state of the art" defense, in which the manufacturer claims its design was based on the safest technology available, will take center

of their memories, when people encounter similar situations in the future, they will know how to

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,