Introduction. Castro Has Been Employed With Transfield

In the case of Jacobsen vs. Nike Canada Ltd, Mr. Jacobsen an employer of Nike Canada Ltd was seriously injured in a car accident as a result of alcohol consumption while at work. This paper will prove that the defendant (Nike Canada Ltd.) was negligent in all the four elements of “Negligence “ and therefore liable for the injuries. Also it will explain for any legal defense that the employer (Nike Canada Ltd.) might be able to raise.

Issue: One day, Kelly Mala went to Crown Bay Marina to buy some fuel for his boat, so he asked a Crown Bay Marina’s attendant to watch his boat while he purchased fuel. However, when he returned, mala saw his boat’s tank was overflowing and fuel was spilling into the boat and into the water. Then Mala began cleaning up the fuel, but as he pulled away from the marina, his boat’s engine caught fire and exploded. Mala was thrown into the water and severely burning. His boat was unsalvageable. Therefore, Kelly Mala sued Crown Bay Marina after his boat exploded.

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.

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

|of work premises has a responsibility under RIDDOR to report any work related accidents or disease which result in | | | |

The plaintiff accompanied his son and son’s friend and knowing the fact that the driver (McNeilly) is inexperienced so he drove himself where the road was hilly and difficult while he allowed both the defendant and his son occasionally for some drive spells when it was clear two lane track with no obvious corrugations.

There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on

and injuring the Plaintiff with no warning, breaching the reasonably established agreement how the Plaintiff was to help only with Transporting of said Household items, with the Plaintiff’s Truck and Trailer only. Defendant Benny Hans Sorensen’s Negligent instructions and the Defendant Gaden Griffin’s Negligent Actions caused the Plaintiff’s Permanent Damages, adding injury to the Plaintiff’s existing Disability, with no care and lack of consideration of Plaintiff’s injury, especially immediately after the Plaintiff’s injury while the Plaintiff was moaning and complaining about how heavy the said 330 lbs Appliance was and walking in circles and holding his back, neck, and shoulder. The Defendants’ gross actions and negligent actions

Ronnie was the primary victim as he was placed in physical danger whilst in the truck and suffered psychiatric harm as a result. For this sole reason, he is owed a duty of care by his employers. The nature of their relationship means . Failure to install a new safety screen equates to the company's failure to meet the standard of care and they are liable for breach. Ronnie's refusal to wear a helmet is an example of negligent contribution and the two requirements of this principle are satisfied: Ronnie did not take proper care for his own safety and said failure was contributory to the damage he suffered. This is similar to the Capps v Miller case of 1989, where the claimant did not fasten his helmet, subsequently suffering from serious head injuries. Contributory negligence operates as a defence for Bricks R Us, however it is only partial to avoid absolution of liability, since the court's primary aim is to compensate the

The plaintiff must prove that there was negligence from the defendant’s side, which resulted with the injury and they are to be blamed. Negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury, and whether a legal duty exists is something that needs to be solved within the court. In this case, what needs to be determined is whether the City of Elsewhere and/or Officer Ruthless had a duty to Susie Marks regarding to her riding in the camper of the truck, and if so, to then determine the actual cause of the injuries to Susie. The actual cause refers to what really caused the injuries.

The prosecutor advised the jury to consider the extent to which Ford recklessly and knowingly trade profit over safety in the placement and design of the Pinto’s gas tank. Ford Company went ahead to manufacture the car even after the engineers did a crash test that

What led to the arrest of the East LA 13 and Sal Castro’s reinstatement as an

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

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

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.