Causes And Consequences Of The Claimant Loss

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

As Privy Council held in the case of "Wagon Mound (No 1)" that a party can only be held liable for damage that was reasonably foreseeable, the defendant should not be responsible for losses that are ‘too remote’ from the breach. It is obviously that the university could foresee that Brad have to quit his job to finish the degree and also need to pay for the fees.

According to section 26 of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic.), the result of a successful plea of contributory negligence will be an apportionment of damages. So, if a defendant is a negligent without any contributory negligence by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive 100 per cent of the damage, but if the plaintiff is held to be contributory negligent to the extent of 40 per cent, then the plaintiff will only receive 60 per cent of the damage. (FoBL, 2005, p84) For instance, the case of Liftronic Pty Ltd v. Unver[10], the defendant (Liftronic Pty Ltd) was found liable in negligence but Unver’s damages were reduced by 60 per cent due to his contributory negligence.

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.

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

Due to the direct or proximate cause of negligence from the defendant has led to a disaster of massive proportions. The defendant through their inactions and negligence in the up-keeping, maintenance, and construction of the dams, that eventually led to the disaster, owe the plaintiff punitive damages.

(2) In those instances where the plaintiff is not guilty of negligence, he would be forced to bear a portion of the loss should one of the tortfeasors prove financially unable to satisfy his share of the damages.

No, the law of proximate cause does not apply in this circumstance. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for negligence.

These are the factual and the proximate cause of the events case scenario. Despite the fact that Candie Cardigan falling off the runway was the cause of Myra’s nose and facial injuries, she was the indirect and unforeseeable future cause for the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant is therefore not legally responsible for the damages of which the plaintiff claims as a negligent act. (Mitchell v. Gonzales, 1991).

1. Negligence / Personal Injury - 2 Years with Modified Discovery Rule (knew or should have known injury was wrongfully caused even if plaintiff did not know it was actionable). (statutes of limitations).

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.

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

It is apparent that Steven was not paying enough attention when crossing the road on the night of the accident. Thus, Steven was, to a degree, also negligent as he did not adequately check that the road was clear. When deciding the degree of contributory negligence the courts must look at what reduction of damages pay-out is "just and equitable having regard 's to the claimant 's share in the responsibility for the damage". In order to reach a percentage of blameworthiness for each side, a broad comparison must be made of both the individual contributions from the pursuer and the defender, looking at both the causation of damage and the blameworthiness.

“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own