Negligence Involving An Automobile Accident

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.

Mr. Foster is student at Jacksonville State University. 2014 was his second year at Jacksonville, and he was taking a year off from studies to work and save money. Mr. Foster had gone home to Georgia for Christmas, but was returning to Jacksonville to pick up some Christmas gifts he had left at his apartment. He had stopped at Walmart in Jacksonville and was headed to his apartment in the late afternoon. He thinks he may have dosed off at the wheel he rounded a curve off of the town square, and “next thing I know” the traffic light was red and his vehicle struck the vehicle of the plaintiff. Mr. Foster concedes running a red light, but says it was raining and the asphalt was slick.

Jeffery Calkin, the defendant, leased a vehicle for our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc., and was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff, Jane White. A negligence suit was filed by Ms. White against Mr. Calkin and our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. The suit claims that our client is required to carry insurance and therefore has a duty to assume responsibility for this accident under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act (MFRA).

Teacher's role in the classroom is to take place of the parents whilst in school. They also must take reasonable action to decrease the likelihood of injury to students. (Queensland teachers union, teachers and law 5th edition page 7)

Mr. Alvarado approached my client suddenly after running a red light. The negligence of your insured caused Ms. Tellez to collide into Mr. Alvardo’s left side of the door after Mr. Alvarado ran a red light. Ms. Tellez bags deployed, causing great damage to her car. See Photographs, attached as Exhibit A. The two-car collision occurred suddenly and without warning.

Jose Carcamo et al., Defendants and Appellants in the Supreme Court of California held that tort liability based on negligent hiring and retention is a cause of action distinct from vicarious liability based on respondeat superior. In the case against Jose Carcamo, it was stated he hit a car while driving his truck for his employer, causing Renae Diaz to lose control of her vehicle. The jury awarded Diaz $22.5 million in damages in which Sugar Transport, Carcamo’s employer, was also help liable based on its negligent hiring of Carcamo. Sugar Transport contended that while it is liable for Carcamo’s driving, it should not be held liable for negligent hiring and retention. The court reviewed negligent hiring and retention as theories of liability independent of vicarious liability. The court stated that the liability comes from hiring and retaining an employee who is unfit to conduct his or her duties. Due to the fact that the employer had sufficient enough reason to believe that undue harm could exist with the employment of Carcamo, they were held liable for negligent hiring. Carcamo’s driving history included previous accidents that were relevant to his job assignment. Sugar Transport thus disregarded his past driving record and the danger that could come with his driving for the company. The jury properly considered that evidence when apportioning fault for the

The first option is to determine whose negligent driving caused the accident between Deb and Abe. Although Cal’s injuries were minor from the initial crash, without this action, Ann would have not hit the two cars injuring Cal further and losing his legs. Since Cal was in the car with Abe and could see his actions, it can be assumed that Deb was the negligible drive that caused the collision. It would be recommended that Cal and Abe collaborate to bring a law suit against Deb for negligible

The Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligent entrustment, against the Defendant, Mr. Franklin. Pl.’s Compl. Count II, (Feb. 23, 2016). The Plaintiff alleged that, on the day of the accident Ms. Johnson was using Mr. Franklin’s vehicle with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Franklin. Pl.’s Compl. at 3 ¶ 7 (Feb. 23, 2016). The Plaintiff stated that on the day of the accident she overheard Ms. Johnson state to the police officer that she was driving her boyfriend’s vehicle, and assumed that he gave her permission to use the vehicle. Def.’s Interrog. No. 10 (Mar. 8, 2016).

Our text defines a tort as “a civil wrong” and negligence as “a tort, a civil or personal wrong” (Pozgar, 2012). Negligence as it is related to healthcare is an unintentional commission or omission of an act that a reasonably prudent person or organization would or would not do under normal circumstances. Not following a recognized standard of care could be considered negligence. The case I have chosen to study is one from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City Maryland and is that of Enso Martinez a minor by and through his parent (Rebecca Fielding) vs The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore Maryland July 2013. I would describe this as a landmark, “David vs Goliath” case

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.

The client is currently a college student studying business. The client reports good grades and flexibility from her professors since the accident. The client was hit by another vehicle traveling at high speeds through a red light. The client was taken to the hospital post accident and sustained internal injuries. The client continues to report physical pain.

Paul Joseph, the other driver – Florida’s no fault law includes an “injury threshold” limiting law suits to claims of great bodily injury, permanent disability or disfigurement. Statutes, however, are unclear as to exactly what constitutes great bodily injury. It is unlikely that Paul Joseph would be named as a defendant in this action, as Mary’s PIP insurance would be the proper party. Under Florida’s Civil Remedy Statute, §624.155(1)(b), Mary’s insurance company is required to act in her best interests. Should they act in “bad faith” by failing to settle for a reasonable amount, Mary may sue for an amount which is “a reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section by the authorized insurer and may include an award or judgment in an amount that exceeds the policy limits.” Fla. Stat. §624.155(8) However, the statute goes on to state that “No punitive damages shall be awarded under this section unless the acts giving rise to the violation occur with such frequency as to indicate a general business practice and these acts are: (a) Willful, wanton, and malicious; (b) In reckless disregard for the rights of any insured; or (c) In reckless disregard

Donna Driver unintentionally ran a red light, and caused a car accident with Vic Victim. Vic sustained severe injuries. Donna’s auto insurance policy with Gekko has liability coverage limit of $100,000.00. Vic’s medical bills alone run close to that, and there’s also his loss of work and pain & suffering to be taken into account. Vic wants to settle the entire case for $100,000.00, and Donna pleads with Gekko to do so since it is obvious that he could recover more than that based on the facts of this case. Gekko tells her that they will only offer $50,000.00, and if it’s not accepted, they will take their chances at trial.

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

It can be concluded that Mr. Prendergast was acting negligently whilst driving his car, above the national speed limit, as confirmed by his insurers. Therefore Contributory Negligence is the basic issue to be consulted with the insurers who are claiming that Steven’s claim ought to be ‘substantially reduced’ due to the negligence on his behalf.