Example Of Negligence In Business Law

Negligence is upholding a certain leavel of care by determining if it meets the four components nessessary for a claim; duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case duty was not handled correctly. Duty means you agree to take care of a health care patients. THe girls working at the Good Samaritan Home did not take proper care of the residents. Breach of duty is broken down into four categories; Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance. In this case the breach of duty refers to nonfeasance. There was a failure to act, by no other employees bringing the ause to attention. Causation requires an injury to be due to the healthcare professionals negligence. In the case of abuse in the Good Samaritan case there was no other way the injuries could have happened. The damages refers to the injuries caused to the residents.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

Jane kidnaps Edward's elderly mother and tells Edward that if he does not paint graffiti on Eric's house, Jane will kill his mother.

Damage to the parked car was $5,400 and damage to the store was $12,650. What amount will the insurance company pay for the damages? What amount will Kurt have to pay?

Can you explain why the store did not take pictures of the incident scene and the plaintiffs’ shopping cart? This question would cast doubt on if the store was trying

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.

It is unavailing for Williams to argue that employees must take greater care to avoid placing themselves in harm's way or that management can “expect an employee not [to] intentionally place himself in danger, because such a claim misconstrues the purpose of the OSHA safety standards. In turn, Williams’ argument was not effective due to the fact that it is the responsibility of the foreman and/or owner of the construction to provide training to any new hire or reassigned employee working on the site. OSHA also provided testimony and/or proof from there investigation that employees were not being trained before they began working on the site. It is the responsibility of any employer to ensure that all employees have been provided company safety manuals and OSHA regulations, as well as training sessions to make sure they are knowledgeable of the information. The company demonstrated negligence when a supervisor testified that the safety manual was behind the seat of his truck and he never referred to it to make sure they followed safety protocol. Therefore, the fines should not have been decreased from $91,000 to $22,000 nor

In this scenario, Randy, who was struck by the BUGusa van, was at fault for not yielding while turning left (University of Phoenix, 2013).  Randy, who failed to yield, would be considered the tortfeasor.  Randy’s actions would be considered negligent because they were not willful. However, Randy’s vehicle was the one that was struck by BUGusa so the tort in this scenario would be considered Strict Liability

An employer is liable for the actions of his employee unless they fall outside the scope of employment. Williams v. Community Drive-In Theater, Inc., 520 P.2d 1296, [p. 1297] (Kan. 1974). To fall inside the scope, the employee’s actions must (1) arise naturally from the course of their jobs and (2) intend to further employer’s interest and not done for personal reasons. Daugherty v. Allee’s Sports Bar & Grill, 260 S.W.3d 869, [p. 873] (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts their employee commits during the course and scope of his employment. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 441, 445 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003). In order for an employer to be liable, there must be evidence that during the time of the negligent act, there was a master-servant relationship. Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 157 161 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 367, 359 (Mo. 1963).

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts their employee commits during the course and scope of his employment. Studebaker v. Nettie 's Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Jones v. Brashears, 107 S.W.3d 441, 445 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003). For an employer to be liable, there must be evidence that a master-servant relationship existed during the time of the negligent act. Bargfrede v. American Income Life Ins. Co., 21 S.W.3d 157 161 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Gardner v. Simmons, 370 S.W.2d 367, 359 (Mo. 1963).

your vehicle is safe for you and other drivers. If the accident happens in traffic on a freeway it

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

Chapter 12 section 5 states that “negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) The duty of care that the driver had was to obey the traffic laws. He neglected to obey such laws which ended in an injury to the driver of the truck. There are four elements to negligence. These elements are duty of care, breach, causation and damages.