Fact Pattern#1
Anthony, Paul and Silvio are the Plaintiffs. A plaintiff is the person/party initiating the civil suit.
Truck driver and trucking company are the Defendants. A defendant is the person/party whom the legal action of the suit is sought against.
Case involves Negligence. Negligence is a tort. The definition of a tort is a private or civil wrong or injury, other than breach of contract, for which a court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages. All torts actions involve three elements of legal duty from the defendant to the plaintiff, breach of that duty and damage as a result.
The plaintiffs must prove the five elements of negligence which are the following:
1. Duty of Care-legal duty required the defendant to conform to the standard of conduct established for the protection of others.
2. Breach of Duty-that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care
3. Factual Cause-defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care in fact caused the harm the plaintiff sustained.
4. Harm-the harm sustained is of a type protected against negligent conduct
5. Scope of Liability- that the harm sustained is within the “scope of liability” or proximate cause (Risk standard)
The defendant (truck driver) was negligent in that his conduct – speeding was not the standard of conduct established for the protection of others.
Breach of duty could be on the truck driver and on Anthony. The truck driver because he should have taken precautions not to speed and to
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.
37. In negligence cases, Defendants are generally held to the standard of a reasonable person.
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).
The defendant is the Australian couple Matthew and Annette Palmer, while the plaintiff is Nader Mohareb. The role of the defendant in the civil case is the person being sued, while the plaintiff’s role is the person taking the defendant to court to attempt to sue them.
Tort law enables citizens to seek reimbursement for loss and or suffering from conduct that would be deemed dangerous or unreasonable of others (3). Tort law is non criminal and is dealt with in our civil judicial system. The categories of Tort Law include intentional tort, negligence and strict liability.
Defendant: the person being sued or accused by plaintiff in the court of law (Clarkson, Miller, Frank, Cross chapter 1). Reckitt & Colman, Inc. will be referred to in this analysis as “R&C” from here on forward.
(3) Please explain why the parties are not referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendant’?
Negligent torts are one of the most common types of tort cases. Negligent torts are cases that look at the actions of an individual or company that are not deliberate, but more so when an individual or company failed to act toward as a reasonable individual should, to someone whom he owes a duty to. Negligence action found in this particular tort can lead to personal injuries or monetary damages.
The scenarios below provide several examples of torts to include negligence, unintentional torts, intentional torts, assault, battery, etc. Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party (Cornell, 2010).
Factual Causation: having been proven in court of causing harm and discomfort to a person or property
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
Presented are four separate cases that have been argued and settled in a court of law. Each of these cases represent a different kind of tort, a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, which can be either intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another (Hill & Hill n.d.). The torts are as listed, intentional, criminal, negligence, and liability as presented in the four researched cases.
A tort is defined by acts that are considered civil wrongs, that affects a person or property. Tort cases are handled in civil court hearings. In An introduction to Law in Georgia, a tort is defined as, “a wrongful act that injures or interferes with another's person or property. A tort case is a civil court proceeding. The accused is the "defendant" and the victim is a "plaintiff." An Introduction to Law in Georgia, Fourth Edition, published by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government, 1998.
Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.
Whether the breach of duty has caused the plaintiff’s injury is the third element of negligence. Requirements for causation are causation in fact and proximate cause. Causation in fact is determined by the “but for” test, which means if it was not for the defendant’s breach of duty, harm or injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause is when the connection between the action (breach of duty) and the injury is strong enough to impose liability. Another issue that needs to be considered is foreseeability because the defendant’s action must have created a foreseeable risk of injury. In this case, the crew of Titanic was navigating the ship during the night at high rate of speed in water with