Part 1 Question 1A – What is the basis of the finding of the majority of the judges that the road and traffic authority is not liable to the defendant and is not negligent? Discuss the principles. Answer: In the article of court case Road and Traffic Authority (RTA) vs Mr Dederer (Plaintiff)- The plaintiff who was 14 years old at the time of incident, who dived over the bridge from the highest horizontal railings which was flat and about nine meters high from the river’s shallow water surface and suffered very severe spinal injury. The river and bridge area was point of tourist attraction and was used by many youngsters for jumping off the bridge in summer. It was alleged by Mr dederer that enough measure were not taken by RTA for the safety of people and to discourage the youngster to jumping off the bridge. The plaintiff was a regular visitor of this bridge since childhood who has seen many people jumping off the bridge in summer as swimming and water sports was major attraction of the district. No major accident was reported from past 39 years but it was observed by council and RTA the dangerous nature of jumping off the bridge. RTA has put pictogram of No diving sign with consultation with local council after observing that many people use this bridge for jumping which does not had effect to stop people to jump off the bridge. It was sign for prohibition but does not state nature of danger. The fact that bridge railing has flat surface which facilitate as launching
Fiona Burch with her two kids (plaintiff) claims a case against shire of YR, and a company of quality roads pvt ltd as they are responsible death of the Michael on basis of defendants caused the break of his duty and responsibility.
Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:
1) Did Cornell University through planning with the City of Ithaca exercise sufficient control over the design, construction, and maintenance of the Thurston Avenue Bridge where they could not be held liable for any alleged hazards on the bridge that might cause injuries or death?
Paul Imbree, the plaintiff , a supervising licensed driver has suffered a serious injury in a road accident in Northern Territory due to the negligence and breach of duty of care by Jesse McNeilly aged 16 years & 5 months old, the first defendant, and an inexperienced driver not possessing any driver/ learner’s permit.
Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.
We have had further discussions with Mr. Ashiku, Mr. Zubairi, and Ms. Kristen Finkensher, the bartender on duty on the night of the occurrence. Their statements are consistent with the facts stated in our prior report. In short, on the night of the incident, the City of South Elgin was hosting its annual festival, Riverfest, near the pub. There were light towers located throughout the festival grounds, which illuminated the surrounding buildings, including the pub. Plaintiff came into the pub, ordered one beer and, at some point, left the pub. An unknown patron then alerted Ashiku and his bartender that Plaintiff had fallen near the bottom of the stairs. Plaintiff refused assistance from the bartender including an offer to call an ambulance and left in a vehicle driven by her friend. The lights above the stairs were functional and the village’s light towers brightly illuminated the stairs. The bartender described the plaintiff as being about 5’8” tall and weighing about 300 pounds. She believes
Discuss the potential criminal liability of Jonty and Patrick for the non-fatal offences against the person, including any relevant defences (50 marks)
Although all accidents and injuries can be unique in their own way, we do utilize a professional, structured process that is designed to protect your rights and attain a positive resolution for you. We assemble your claim alleging the negligence of the responsible party, using police reports, medical observations, photographs, witness accounts, and your own testimonial account. While we do all of the work, you can concentrate on healing and recovering, while anticipating the normalcy returning back to your
The second argument will be delivered by Beatrice where her account of the occurrences will be reviewed, along with possible claims and remedies available to her. Crucial acts which may be of great use to Beatrice will also be referenced, in order to strengthen her case against the defendant Macgregor hotel.
(b) R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No.1) [1990] AC 85 and (No.2) [1991] 1 AC 603
A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.
I decided to attend a night traffic court session at the Ventura Courthouse. The cases ranged from seat belt violations to reckless driving. Most of the defendants appeared before the court to request more time to pay the fines associated with the tickets. I was surprised to see that very few of the people in the courthouse were pleading not guilty. Only one person showed up to defend a case with legal help from an attorney of some sort.
It may be very upsetting to get a traffic solution, especially if it's never happened for you before. Some people don't take getting the traffic citation or even ticket seriously when for his or her own good they should. Getting a traffic ticket isn't always a easy or small issue. Going ahead as well as paying the ticket doesn't bring an end into it. The Department of Cars (DMV) sees fit to put points on your license for practically just about all traffic infractions, end up being they small, moderate or large. This really is where a traffic attorney could be of help for you.
Those familiar with skiing know that there are risks involved when one chooses to participate in the sport. Those risks, however, should be associated with self-inflicted harm caused by mistakes that a skier may make and not unforeseen obstacles and dangerous situations. The injuries sustained by Alex Johnson on the slopes at Bethlehem Ice Solutions (BIS) were not self-inflicted; far from it. They were the result of negligence on the part of BIS who failed to mark boundaries that separates the slopes and caused Craig to crossover onto another slope, walking directly into Alex’s path and colliding into
Claudia Johnson was pulled over by PC 5342 Iva Statistik and is presented with a Fixed-Penalty notice, a fine of £100 and 3 penalty points for using her smartwatch whilst driving under Section 41D (b) Road Traffic Act 1988. Johnson who already has 9 points on her licence and will be facing a driving ban under the “totting up” procedure, which could also led to her losing her job. She decided to go to court to appeal this decision. In court the judge will use one of four rule of interpreting statute in question.