Case Analysis-

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

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.

UNDER ____, FAULT IS APPORTIONED; WHERE THE PLAINTIFF IS NEGLIGENT AS WELL AS THE DEFENDANT, THE PLAINTIFF'S AWARD IS REDUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF'S PERCENTAGE OF FAULT.

The Tort of Negligence put the claimant in the position to prove that the defendant owed to them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty and the claimant must have suffered damages as result of that breach (Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC562).

Contributory Negligence: A court may find a plaintiff contributory negligent or partially responsible for their injuries.

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

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

Both parties failed to be negligent in this scenario. Although Brian was speeding, Randy failed to yield. The main defense should be whether this accident could have been prevented if Randy hadn’t failed to yield. Both were in the wrong doing as both broke the law. If Brian wasn’t speeding, could he have stopped ahead of time before striking Randy? Both parties were an example of comparative negligence. They each contributed to the accident; therefore, this tort will dictate how the responsibility for this accident will be shared between both of the parties whom were involved and suffered bodily injury or property damage.

Under the provisions of the Uniform Act 41-3-1 to 41-3-8, in New Mexico, comparative negligence laws means that the plaintiff may recover, but only a certain percentage for their injuries. The court must apportion the fault with a percentage such as 50/50, 60/40 etc. Once this is done, any award of damages will be reduced by the amount of fault attributed to the

Under the doctrine of unintentional tort, commonly referred to as negligence, a person is liable for harm that is foreseeable consequences of his or her action. Negligence is defined as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

There are two types of comparative negligence: pure comparative negligence and partial comparative negligence. Pure comparative negligence is when the plaintiff can recover from damages even if their negligence is greater than defendant’s negligence. Partial comparative negligence is when the plaintiff cannot recover from damages if negligence exceeds a certain threshold.

A defendant, like TEACHER, would be held liable for negligence, if the plaintiff, JENNIFER, can prove that there was a duty owed to her, that TEACHER breached that duty, the breach of that duty was the actual and proximate cause of Betty’s injuries.

In the court of law, negligence can be described as an unintentional tort. Negligence is a duty to the plaintiff (party which sues) that the defendant (party being sued) owes, based on a breach of promise to exercise care and safety. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s actions fell short of a “reasonable” standard. To prove a negligence case, there are several foundational requirements that must be present in order to carry out a trial. The first being, one must establish a duty of care, or relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. The simplest form is one’s obligation to the world, in which you must act in such a way to not put another person in unreasonable risk of harm. In the cases being presented, Fudge v. The City of Kansas City, and Purton v. Marriott International, this duty of care is established as Delmar Henley and James Fudge were citizens of the same town but did not know each other prior to the accident, nor did Dr. Jared Purton nor Michael Landri (of Marriott) have a prior connection. The second step is to determine the duty owed to the defendant. In our cases, monetary compensation were at stake. Proximate causality, or primary cause of the sustained injury represents the third foundation, and an act from which an injury results and ultimately answers the question as to whether or not the defendant’s action is closely enough related to the plaintiff’s

There was no defence for defendant because there was no any voluntary assumption and contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Plaintiff didn’t fully understood and took the risk by himself and not even he contributed himself to take that injury.