Interpretation Of The Golden Rule Approach

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).

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

A trading standards officer gave a 14year old boy money to buy a video with an “18” classification certificate at a supermarket. The boy bought the video and handed it over to the officer. The supermarket were charged with supplying a video with “18” classification certificate to a person who was below that age contrary to section.11 (1) of the video

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).

Grant’s offers were $2,500 for the whole set, the value of the whole collection could increase the value of the single bobblehead. However, as seen in Parker, the value of the handset was not determined by the value of the unit, but by the separate value of the part which the thief stole. The value of the bobblehead can only amount to the value it would be when held separate from the rest of the collection; therefore, the court will hold that neither of the collection values are applicable in this

This Defendant now seeks summary judgment against the Plaintiff’s negligence claims because (1) this Defendant owed the Plaintiff no duty with regard to the incident made the basis of this suit; and (2) no act or omission on the part of this Defendant was a proximate cause of the subject incident or of the Plaintiff’s resulting injuries.

From the beginning of this litigation, Appellant has argued that his Property was damaged by Respondent’s negligence and that he is entitled to compensation for this damage to his Property.

Commonwealth, 139 Va. 578, 123 S.E. 333 (1954). Plainly, the victims’ statements, [that “she would rather the he go to jail than to have him dating her sister” and that she withheld his property to prevent him from leaving] are obvious incitements that triggered the plaintiffs retrieval of the rifle and the discharging of a bullet. Additionally, intent is a state of mind that can be evidenced verbally or through action as seen by the recipient, in the case of Merritt v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 653; 180 S.E. 395 (1935). The victim implied that the plaintiff did not express aggression towards her before, but surely, her hostility and refusal to release his property may have elevated his temperament to a level of intent. Considering these circumstances and the plaintiff’s admission, the court could satisfy the requirements for attempted murder. On the contrary, if the plaintiff only brandished the weapon, the consequences and response of the court would be less

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

The Plaintiff has suffered damages from the proximate cause of the defendant’s inaction and failure to follow proper procedures, in place by appropriate

(Q1 - 4) On March 8th 2017 Student Group 5 attended the Supreme Court case Awatere v The Queen in Courtroom 7 of the Sir Samuel Way Building. Being a criminal trial, the accused, Mr. Awatere, is being tried by a 13 man jury, abiding with s6 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA) on the charge of murder. Witness examination and cross-examination was conducted before presiding Justice David Lovell and the jury, consistent with s6(2) and s6A of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). This criminal trial will determine if Mr Awatere is guilty of intending to murder or grievously harm his former partner and victim, Ms J Ohide (hereinafter ‘the victim’) by strangulation. Official legal parties in the case are the accused: Mr T Awatere, represented by a defence barrister

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

The defendant went to a neighborhood “junk shop” and bought a switchblade knife with a “very unusual carved handle and blade.”

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law