Explain the Origin and the Concept of ‘Neighbour Principle’. Illustrate with Decided Cases the Application of This Principle.

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.

Negligence is the failure to do something. Many medical cases are filed as medical malpractice suits, “medical malpractice is professional misconduct. Malpractice differs from negligence because it is performed by a license medical professional” (Flight 2). The case of Horton V. Niagara Falls Memorial Medical Center can be used as a primary example where negligence, “failure to take reasonable precautions to protect others from the risk of harm” (Flight 33), is visible.

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.

In Pennsylvania, a plaintiff claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress must establish one of these four situations: “1) that the defendant had a contractual or fiduciary duty; 2) plaintiff suffered a physical impact; 3) plaintiff was in a “zone of danger” and at risk of an immediate physical injury; or 4) plaintiff had a contemporaneous perception of tortious injury to a close relative.” Doe v. Phila. Cmty. Health Alternatives AIDS Task Force, 754 A.2d 25, 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000). The first element does not apply to our client because there was no fiduciary or contractual duty relationship. Secondly, it could be argued that Nordlund suffered a physical impact because after Sumner’s accident, Nordlund could not eat, could not

The concept of personal injury law includes a wide array of complex situations in which a person is physically hurt while also suffering emotional and financial damages. The injuries and damages are due to the negligence and wrongdoing of another person or party. A wrongful death can also be considered a case that a bodily injury attorney would be hired to handle by a surviving family member. However, most common personal injury cases emerge in the unfortunate context of vehicle accidents, construction and workplace mishaps, product liability (defective or dangerous product), medical malpractice, dog bites, recreational fall-backs, and environmental pollutants and poisonings. Silverthorne Attorneys

Secondly, he proposed two versions of principles for the second premise. The favored principle is that “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” From this principle he suggests that people should give a help to person if the situation after giving a help is not as bad as the situation that the person was. The guideline is quite obvious that we should help if the sacrifice is affordable and is not harmful to our life.

127). principles can be understood as a set of rules that one follows. For example, in the case of Himmler, he felt that it was very hard to implement any kind of policies while being sympathetic. In order to get rid of those sympathies he somewhat disregarded what his “principles” were and decided what one ought to do (Huckleberry, 1974, p.128). Principles do not necessarily give one a moral life but principles are good to have because they protect one from acting badly at moments when ones sympathies seem to take over (Huckleberry, 1974, p.132). For example, the scenario that was given by Bennett was a child not wanting to be seen by a doctor. If the mother acted based on her sympathies, she would neglect her child being checked out by the doctor because she felt sympathy towards her child. Ones principles should not overrule sympathies because sympathies are feelings or emotions that one obtains in a specific moment or situation. It is understood that feelings and what one should do morally may go in opposite directions (Huckleberry, 1974, p. 124). Therefore, in some situations, principles ought to overrule sympathies, and in other situations sympathies should overrule principles. Sometimes the moral thing to do, is in the opposite direction of what the rule or principal thing to

The example Singer used to illustrate his second principle is the drowning child in a shallow pond. If a person happened to be walking past by that pond, then that person can easily get involved to help. In this case, the only risk for that person is to have his clothes muddy (Singer 231). But how can tell that we are morally required to do such act? What if that person who happens to be walking past by that pond has a very important interview and he cannot risk having his formal clothes get muddy because there will be no chance that he’ll get accepted for the job? An objection that can be used against this principle is Rahul Kumar’s mutual aid # 2 which states that “A person must do what is necessary to prevent a significant loss to someone else when she can do so at much less significant cost to herself” (Kumar 299). In one of his examples, he illustrated Geoff as “a world-renowned experimental psychologist, who has a deserved reputation for his skill as a critic” (Kumar, 299). Geoff only needs to exert little effort to read and comment on young psychologists’ papers. His comments on their papers can radically improve its quality. In this case, if we apply Singer’s second promise then Geoff is obligated to comment on all research

Case Study: Sandra, a 45-year old female, was brought into the emergency room by her friends with a severe head wound. According to her friends, Sandra tripped and fell after consuming several alcoholic drinks. When she arrived at the hospital she was incoherent and the hospital staff was not able to contact her next of kin. Due to the severity of her wounds, the physician chose to begin medical procedures.

One of these is the principle of respecting your fellow human beings. This principle is the proper

In 1970, Lord Reid said that Lord Atkin's dictum must to apply unless there was some support or valid justification for its elimination Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970] AC 1004.

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.

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

Claimant, on the balance of probabilities (51% or more), must prove that the negligence was a result of the injury, to establish causation. If this is successful, the claimant will be entitled to full compensation. If on balance of probability is 49% or less, the patient will not be entitled to damages. The issue in court was the difficulty to rely on the accuracy of the probability as evidentiary basis.

Prior to this, “fraudulent misstatement” or similar would have been required as a material fact when using the “…often quoted and variously explained” case as Lord Atkin stated when referring to the comments of Parke B .