Hsa 515 Law and Health

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

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.

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).

38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?

A civil suit is commonly derived from a private party or individual, who alleges damages from duty of care. Once a civil case begins, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove, with evidence, duty of care, breach of duty, causation, and damages. Conversely, the defendant must prove their affirmative defense against documented allegations. The Oliver versus Brock case proves the importance of supporting evidence as opposed to hearsay statements, to prove the truth of the matter. In the Oliver versus Brock case, Cathy (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Bryan Whitfield Memorial Hospital of Demopolis and the treating physicians Dr. F.S. Whitfield, Dr. Paul Ketcham and Dr. E.C. Brock (Defendant) for negligence of care. Analyzing the facts in

12. Which of the following torts committed by an agent is the liability of the principal?

For a plaintiff to triumph a claim of medical malpractice for negligence, four elements must be established. The first element is proving the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. The second is to show that the defendant breached the duty to the plaintiff. The third is to show that the plaintiff was harmed and experienced damages. Finally, the fourth is to show that the plaintiff was harmed by the actions of the defendant (Greenberg, 2009).

There are four elements to tort law: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. To claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant

Accordingly, for a plaintiff to claim a negligence cause of action, he or she must plead and attest: (1) the defendant has a duty recognized by the law requiring the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct for the protection of others including the plaintiff; (2) the defendant failed to perform that duty; and (3) an injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the failure of duty (See Westchester, 524). A possessor of land owes a

Vicarious liability occurs when the injured person is able to get reimbursement for the harm done. In a business setting, if an employee injures a colleague, the employer may be subject to vicarious liability. So the injured person has the right to demand from his employer for compensation (Michaels 2006).

To maintain an action in negligence, the Plaintiff must assert that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, that the defendant breached that duty, that the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss, and that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant's breach of the duty. Further, in slip and fall claims in Maryland, the Plaintiff must prove that the accident was directly caused by a hazard on the premises of the store; the owner either created

In order to receive compensation for medical injuries claimants are required to prove that the medical injury was caused due to the negligence of the medical professional against whom the claim is made. Compensation would only be awarded if the claimant is able to successfully prove their claim in accordance with the legal tests used by the judiciary when determining the liability of the medical professional.

In this case the four elements were clearly neglected by the nurse. Duty, dereliction, direct course, and damages had to be present in order for the patient to sue the nurse. The patient suffered injuries due to a procedure that was administered by the nurse. The process also caused other injuries to the patient. This gave the patient the burden of proof she needed to prevail in her lawsuit.

Plaintiff must must also prove that the product that injured is defective. How easy this is to prove depends on the type of claim they are making.

The English Law on Vicarious Liability An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the