Case Study : Negligence, Duty Of Care And Breach Of Duty Essay

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.

Had he been wearing the safety belt, he would not have been killed. The second defense that Ford Motor Company has is that the purpose of a car is to drive it and not to crash a car so that it spun. Since, the door flew open during a spin, Ford Motor Company was not liable for the death of Chancit. The normal use of a car is not to send it into a spin. The third defense that Ford Motor Company has is that Chancit was suffering from food poisoning and was unwell, that was why he was thrown out of the car. The fourth defense is that the car is meant for normal driving. The safety measures in the car were adequate for normal driving. Since, Chancit was driving in a closed lane and possibly at a speed that was higher than that permitted, Ford Motor Company was no liable. III. The City of Los Angeles is liable of negligence. The sign board it placed said Left lane closed ahead, whereas, it was Right lane closed ahead. The City of Los Angeles had a duty of care to ensure that it placed the correct signs so that motorists were not misguided. There was a breach of duty because the City of Los Angeles placed the wrong sign and this misguided Chancit into an accident. There was direct cause between the placement of the wrong sign and the accident that killed Chancit. There was legal causation. Chancit suffered harm because he was killed. In other words, the City of Los Angeles is guilty of negligence. The court will rule in favor of Chancit and award his widow

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.

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

Neil Rekun was killed while riding a motorcycle as he was hit by Carl Pelaez. According to Judge Raup, Rekun was 60% negligent and Pelaez was 40% negligent. “Under Pennsylvania’s Comparative Negligence Act, a plaintiff cannot recover if he or she is more than 50% negligent” (238). In the arbitrary agreement between the two parties, they use the term “comparative fault” which did not include a bar on recovery if a plaintiff was more than 50%

From the beginning of this litigation, Appellant has argued that his Property was damaged by Respondent’s negligence and that he is entitled to compensation for this damage to his Property.

While driving Curtis Campbell the defendant, chose to pass six vans on a two-lane highway. Another driver was Todd Ospital, who was approaching from the other side. Moreover, to avoid a head on collision with the defendant, Ospital swerved over into the shoulder of the highway lost control of his vehicle and crashed in to driver Robert Slusher. In result Ospital was killed, and Slusher was permanently disabled, meanwhile the Campbell’s escape without a scratch. Being charged for wrongful death the defendant believed he was not at fault, however evidence differed his claim. The Campbell’s insurance company decided to deny the offer made by Slusher & Ospital estate for a settlement of “50,000 ($25,000 per claimant)”. (Oyez) Which lead the defendant to be found completely at fault, and judgment went back up to up to $185,849.( Cornell Law). Three years later the defendant, Slusher, and made an agreement that they would not speak against Mr. Campbell; and in exchange the defendant would sue the insurance

As learned in our textbook, four elements must be present for the plaintiff, Veronica, to recover damages caused by Jake’s alleged negligence. These elements include duty to care, breach of duty, injury and causation. The duty to care involves Jake’s legal obligation of his performance to operate a vehicle safely and appropriately according to laws provided by the Department of Motor Vehicle. By listening and singing music, I believe it is not directly evident that he was considered a “distracted driver”. If he was speeding or texting while driving however, his behavior would definitely be up for debate. Secondly, in order for one to determine whether there was a breach of duty, we must find that Jake failed to adhere to the standard of care. The Standard of care

In the state of Minnesota it is a landlord’s duty “that the premises and all common areas are fit for the use intended by the parties.” Minn. Stat. 504B.161, subd. 1(1) (2015). Many negligence cases have interpreted this law in different ways that rely on the specific conditions during the time of the incident, and if the event was reasonably foreseeable and preventable. The foreseeability of an event can be determined within a reasonable amount of care for the premises. Frye v. Huntington Point Apartment Bldg., A05-2356, 2006 WL 1704234, 2 (Minn. Ct. App, 2006). Part of the reasonable care includes a duty to inspect, repair, and inform tenants of dangers. Id. In order to win, one must prove all four elements of a negligence claim: one, did the landlord have a duty to uphold; two, did the landlord violate that duty; three, was someone injured; four, did the violation of the duty cause the injury. Id. In regards to negligence claims that involve lighting, the key factor that needs to be proven is whether or not the plaintiff could reasonably see what they were doing. Namchek v. Tulley, 259 Minn. 469, 107 N.W.2d 856, 472 (1961). As well accumulations of water on stairways are dangerous and if resulting from landlord negligence are the basis for a claim. Frye v. Huntington Point Apartment Bldg., A05-2356, 2006

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

As a defence, contributory negligence has been used successfully to reduce the damages for the defendant to pay. In Wei Fan v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (No.2)11, this principle was introduced by the defence to illustrate that they were not liable for the exacerbation of the plaintiff’s condition. The plaintiff attempted to claim for damages for the following conditions; diabetes type 2, progression of cholecystitis, fractured skull and traumatic brain injury. By applying contributory negligence to the case, the liability of the conditions was entirely placed on the plaintiff due to discharging himself from three hospitals within the district against medical advice. Discharging himself prematurely was proven to have lead to the exacerbation of the

In this first situation, Mike, who is a Utah resident, sues Jim for negligence in the amount of $60,000. Jim is a Nevada resident, therefore, Mike sues in Nevada's Federal district court. Negligence is a state civil law suit. Jim believes that the case should be dismissed because he believes there is a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. By definition, Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases. Additionally, the constitution doesn't extend subject matter jurisdiction to federal district courts. With that in mind, Jim is correct. The case should be filed in a a state trial court. Nevada only has personal jurisdiction over Jim.

As requested, I have reviewed the facts of the above-captioned file, along with the applicable law and summarized same in this memorandum. Mrs. Mary Smith suffered an injury to her right ankle in an automobile accident on 10/3/95. After surgery and months of rehabilitation, Mrs. Smith still suffers daily. I have researched the facts regarding a personal injury action against Paul Joseph, as well as a medical malpractice action against the medical providers.

driving too fast and therefore she is responsible for her own injury and should not