Duty Of Care Case Summary

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.

Among other charges, the plaintiff alleges battery or trespass as one of the offenses committed by the defendant. The question now becomes what constitutes a charge of battery and or trespass and does this embody any of the elements or circumstances that may apply to this particular case. According to criminal law, a battery is defined as both a tort and a crime, and involves the unlawful or unwanted physical contact of another person. This is supported by the reading, “Battery is the actual touching” (Showalter, 2017, pg.127). A trespass to person is any act that excites an apprehension of battery. This is supported by the text, “Trespass to the person is a tort which involves wrongs being done to an individual” (Trespass to the person,

Blake Gibson will unlikely be found guilty of trespassing because her decision to jump through a window for her safety outweighed the harm that would of occurred if she stayed in the public eye. Under Massachusetts’s law, the defendant must show that the harm sought to be avoided far exceeds the harm resulting from the crime committed. Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 575 N.E.2d 741, 743 (Mass. 1991). Once this is proven, defendant can inquire a defense necessity claim. A defense of necessity exonerates one who commits a crime under the pressure of circumstance if they present some evidence on four underlying conditions of the defense. Commonwealth v. Magadini, 52 N.E.3d 1041, 1047 (Mass. 2016). One, a clear and imminent danger. Id. Two, a

The Association alleged in its lawsuit that certain elements of the property were not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner including 1) failure to properly install and flash windows and other exterior penetrations; 2) properly caulk the exterior penetrations; 3) failure to properly install the weather resistive barrier; 4) failure to properly to install the stucco exterior; 5) failure to properly install the EIFS exterior and 6) failure to install brick exterior.

Physician and pain clinic owner Paramjit Singh Ajrawat, of Potomac, Maryland has been ordered to

The Alison Peterson v. Grocery Depot Inc tort lawsuit is about an incident that occurs in countless grocery stores across the United States. Peterson is alleging Grocery Depot Inc. was negligent in their duty of care to her as a business visitor. Grocery Depot Inc. as a property owner has a legal duty to maintain the grocery store premises in a safe and hazard free condition or to warn a customer about any situation that could be dangerous. Peterson alleges Grocery Depot Inc breached this duty, which resulted in her slip and fall.

In regards to the Mrs. McCarty’s sliding door, it was equipped with a lock and an additional safety chain. The safety chain was fastened but the lock was not used. This case had evidence of negligence but none of strict liability. There were reasonable precautions in place.

There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on

Currently, there is a lawsuit pending in Vigo Superior Court which is alleging that negligence by a property owner contributed to the death of three people. These deaths were a result of a fire which engulfed a rental property. The lawsuit claims that both the property owner and the property agent had failed to ensure that there were functional smoke detectors installed within the home. This home was occupied by Kayla Lewis, her daughter Gabrielle, and her stepbrother Jeremiah. Gabrielle age 2, was pronounced dead at the scene amongst the early morning fire at the home. Jeremiah age 5, was transported from the scene but later died at the hospital. Gabrielle's sister Chloe age 3, and her mother Kayla were both hospitalized due to injuries sustained in the fire. Kayla made it to the hospital, but later died.

In the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, the plaintiff fractured her wrist while riding in a Rue le Dodge bumper car at an amusement park in California. The plaintiff filed a case of negligence against the defendant. To prove negligence, the plaintiff will have to establish all of the following requirements: (1) duty of due care, breach of duty, causation, and injury. The defendant had the Rue le Dodge ride inspected yearly by state safety regulators and daily by the park’s maintenance staff. This means they filled their duty of maintaining the ride, breach of duty than does not apply or causation, but there was injury.

On January 16, 2016, less than two months into her tenancy, Plaintiff threw a party with a neighboring tenant. Several tenants called Ms. Miner in the middle of the night to complain about the party and the aggressively loud noise levels coming from the halls, resulting in police involvement in efforts towards shutting down. Moreover, Plaintiff received a personal email from Ms. Miner two days later, notifying her of the complaints filed and to clarify that she was residing in a peaceful residential community where the tenants do not throw or want to hear loud parties. Instead of taking accountability, Plaintiff blamed her neighbor for the disturbance in addition to minimizing her involvement.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

As society became complex, judges thought it was vital to expand larceny theft to involve trespassory taking. However, instead of abolishing trespassory taking as a requirement of larceny, judges developed judicial fiction. The fiction that developed is constructive possession, meaning the condition of having the power to control and item along with the intent to do so. The historical significance of this judicial fiction is when a master delivered property to his servant to be used for the benefit of the master, it was argued that the servant had custody of the property but that the matter retained possession. One case that applied this term is Hustler v. State. During this case, Hufsteler drove his vehicle, with several other men to a

This report is based on my observation at the Landlord and Tenant Board which is located 3 Robert Speck Parkway Suite 520 Mississauga, Ontario L47 2G5 on Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 and Wednesday, January 27th, 2016. Throughout the day at the Landlord and Tenant Board we had observed many different cases.

“In the majority of cases that come before the courts, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care can be determined from precedent created by earlier cases; for example manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to consumers, motorist owe a duty of care to other road users, boat captains owe a duty of care to their passengers, teacher owe a duty of care to their students, occupier owe a duty of care to persons who come on to their property. . (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165, 166 and 169).”