Helen Palsgraf, Respondent, V. the Long Island Railroad Company Case Brief

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

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.

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.

Erin Brokovich was presented with a check for $2 million for all her efforts, and continues to work on cases involving peoples who have been victimized by large corporations.

The job for which Sheila White was hired was by her own admission too tough for her to perform.

Ida had purchased a first class bus ticket but she was later asked to move to the African American section of the train. Ida refused to move and continued to fight with the crew until she was effected from the train and but a man on the hand. Ida sued the railroad and won a $500 settlement in a circuit court case

Mr. Aaron Jackson was placed under arrest and charged with illegal possession of the firearm. It was later discovered that the state of Newtown, a place located near New Setonia and where Mr. Jackson lives, had a similar statute. This statute stated the trucks defined in the New Setonia’s law is actually commercial vehicles. Mr. Jackson asked for a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the car. First, the trial court denied this motion, and Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty. Mr. Jackson appealed for a motion to suppress once again, which was denied because it was stated how Officer Raymond’s initial stop was reasonable under the New Setonia law. When Mr. Jackson made yet another appeal, the Court of Appeals decided to hear the case. Now, the question lingering is whether Officer Raymond stopping the Defendant for violating the New Setonia’s statute is

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

Facts: E.L. Mottley and his wife, Annie E. Mottley, (plaintiffs) were passengers on board a train operated by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company (defendants). Both the plaintiffs and the defendant are citizens of the state of Kentucky. The plaintiffs, while passengers on board a train, were injured in a train wreck on September 7, 1871. The defendants offered the injured plaintiffs a free pass from the defendant’s railroad company in exchange for the agreement that they would not bring suit upon the defendant. The plaintiffs accepted the free passes which would be renewed yearly. Several decades later, in 1906, a law was passed by the U.S. Congress banning free railroad passes. This was passed in order to prevent bribery on government workers and officials. This caused the defendant to refuse the plaintiffs’ renewal of their free passes in which they then filed suit for specific performance in the Circuit Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Cause in fact occurs when the defendant's action is the actual result of the plaintiff's injury (Stapleton, 2011). The presence of this element can ordinarily, but not always, be determined by asking the "but for" question, that is, by asking whether or not but for the defendant's negligence the plaintiff would not have been injured. Meanwhile proximate cause refers to the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injuries. If plaintiff's injuries are remote or far removed from the

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.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

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

Whether the breach of duty has caused the plaintiff’s injury is the third element of negligence. Requirements for causation are causation in fact and proximate cause. Causation in fact is determined by the “but for” test, which means if it was not for the defendant’s breach of duty, harm or injury would not have occurred. Proximate cause is when the connection between the action (breach of duty) and the injury is strong enough to impose liability. Another issue that needs to be considered is foreseeability because the defendant’s action must have created a foreseeable risk of injury. In this case, the crew of Titanic was navigating the ship during the night at high rate of speed in water with

There was no defence for defendant because there was no any voluntary assumption and contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Plaintiff didn’t fully understood and took the risk by himself and not even he contributed himself to take that injury.