Negligence, Or Carelessness?

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.

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 certain situations, a duty of care is owed to another person. For example, a surgeon owes a duty of care to whoever they operate on. The existence of a duty of care is established by the Neighbour Test which was brought in by Lord Aitken after the Donoghue v Stevenson case;

Negligence Per Se: Violation of a standard of care set by statute. Example: injuring a

| |Duty of care can be defined as "an obligation, recognised by law, to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of danger |

When someone doesn’t live up to their responsibility of exercising care, and that failure leads to another person’s injury or death, the action or lack of action is referred to as negligence. As an example, say someone causes a fatal accident because they were speeding. In this case, the driver who was driving above the speed limit acted negligently, and therefore can be held liable in court for damages caused. The victim’s surviving family members can also file a wrongful death lawsuit alleging that the driver who caused the crash owes them damages associated with that untimely and unnecessary death.

This is a requirement that a person acts towards others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use. If a person 's actions do not meet this standard of care, then their actions may be considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence. Professional workers owe a specific duty of care to all vulnerable people with whom they work. The standard of conduct and behaviour expected of people in their professional role is higher than for other people because of the professional training they have received and the level of responsibility they assume.

Intentional tort is the willful and intentional actions of a person to purposely because general or specific loss or harm from or to others. Intentional tort includes battery, assault, and false Imprisonment Negligence is the failure of a person to practice the legal standards established to protect others against potential risk or harm. The main comparison between intentional tort and negligence is the fact of a person(s) knowing and willfully committing a wrongdoing that will or potential cause loss or harm to others. Hello a negligence claim are the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff the defendant committed a breach of this duty and this breach was the actual and proximate cause of injury experienced by the plaintiff these are all the things needed to win a negligence case.(Mallor, 02/2015, p. 227)

Once it has been established that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the claimant must also demonstrate that the defendant was in violation of duty.

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 most courts, if the defendant violates the statutory provisions of duty of care, the violation of laws and regulations will be considered negligence just as a car ran a red light is a violation of traffic rules. If a statute does not specify the duty of care, the court may determine relevant duty of care implicitly established in the legislature through the judicial interpretation. At the same time, even if a statute does not expressly or impliedly reflect legislative intent of the standard of care with certainty, the court can still invoke the provisions of the law to determine the standard of conduct of a reasonable person.

With any criminal offence there are two elements to the crime; the Mens Rea and the Actus Reus. The Mens Rea element is the mental part of the crime and requires proof that the defendant was in a guilty state of mind before the defendant can be convicted of a crime. There are three different types of Mens Rea; direct and oblique intention, recklessness and negligence. Intention is differs from motive or desire.

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

Negligence is the failure to exercise due care or diligence that a reasonable or prudent man would exercise in similar circumstances. The law of negligence falls under tort law where it involves harm that is caused by carelessness and not intentional harm (Katter, 2002). A tort is a civil wrong that is in the form of a breach of duty, which amounts to legal remedy that is awarded in damages. Tort law rests upon two principles that state that an act or omission by the defendant interferes with the rights of the plaintiff, which in turn causes damages (Trindade, 2007). Secondly, the interference caused by the defendant gives rise to a cause of action for damages that are as near as possible to the plaintiff’s loss. Therefore, negligence can be defined as doing something that a reasonable man would not have done in similar circumstances or failure to do what a reasonable man would have done which amounts to infliction of harm.

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.