Business Law-201 Writing Assignment 1

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

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

All operations within an organisation must be viable through legislation. Legislation often constrains just how much information an organisation can have and the manner in which it can be used. Legislation exists to protect both employee and employer from unfair conduct. Legislation is a law which has been produced by the government. Legislation exists to authorise access to particular files, to sanction individuals who do not abide by guidelines set, to restrict how much information can be given, etc. For example, employees must have a formally written contract of employment prior to commencing work with a company. It protects employees against unfair dismissal and states that a redundancy pay must be paid if the

1. Assume that the state of Ohio passed a hazardous waste statute, seeking to protect the general public and workers. The state statute did not violate the Commerce Clause because it imposed no restriction on interstate commerce. Both the state statute and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) established job safety standards and specified worker training and employer licensing, but the requirements differed. Which statute(s) Ohio corporations had to obey? Pick the best ANALYSISwer.

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

Negligence Per Se: Violation of a standard of care set by statute. Example: injuring a

Negligence: A person acts negligently if they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain consequence would result from their actions. Although the level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, the difference between the two is that with recklessness, the actor must be aware of the risk involved with her actions, whereas, for negligence, the actor is not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were”(National Paralegal College, 2017).

Negligence is carelessness amounting to the culpable breach of a duty, ie failure to do something that a reasonable person (ie an average

On April 16th 2007 at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, a student with psychological problems began a two hour killing spree that left 33 dead (Reader). The massacre that occurred at this school is now the worst recorded incident in the history of the United States and eclipses the University of Texas massacre of 1966. In the wake of tragedies like these, students, teachers and administrators propose more measures to make us feel safe on campus. But why weren't these measures in place before? School administrators and police have a responsibility to protect their students and faculty on campus, and these instances clearly shown a lack of fulfilling that responsibility. And yet several campus' refuse to allow law-abiding and

Negligence is when someone is failing to do something that a reasonable person would do in a similar situation or, doing something that a reasonable person did not do in a similar situation.

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: 1. the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; 2. the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and 3. the conduct must be the cause 4. of severe emotional distress. This is exactly what happened din this case. Steve Steel not only knocked the phone out of Prudence’s hand but also broke down the door and threatened Prudence with force and made her scared for her life. I do believe that negligence is a part of this case. A person who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Steve Steel did not show a proper care of duty with Prudence. I think that Steve Steel should also be responsible for all of the physical and mental damages since he did not show reasonable care. I think the tort liability in this case would be assault and battery. An assault involves three things that we see in this case. An assault occurs when an intentional, unlawful threat or "offer" to cause bodily injury to another by force; under circumstances which create in the other person a well-founded fear of imminent peril; where there exists the apparent present ability to carry out the act if not prevented. A battery is the willful or intentional touching of a person against that person’s will by another person, or by an object or

The ______ approach to business and society introduced in the text is a descriptive framework that integrates legal and societal considerations with mainstream theories of competitive advantage and social

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

The court determines a person is negligent when they fail to comply with their duty and when their conduct falls below the standard of care. The standard of care in negligence is established by the law to protect others against the unreasonable risk of harm. The risk must be foreseeable. Pennsylvania courts determine a party’s standard of care by examining what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. A reasonable person would also consider industry standards, historical information, and other guiding information when making decisions. This will allow the party to be on “notice”. With regarding notice, the question that should be asked is “do the facts, circumstances, or history inform you of potential harm.”. One way to determine whether or not someone is a reasonably prudent person is to use a formula—Burden < Probability * Injury. The formula is designed to weigh out the Burden of adequate precautions against the probability of the action occurring and the gravity of the resulting injury. If the Probability of the Injury of the injury and the level of the injury is higher than the Burden, then the party will be found negligent.

Negligence is the breach of duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.