Question 1 a Sydney Tramway Passenger Was Injured in Collision with Another Tram, Which Occurred After the Driver Collapsed at the Controls. the Plaintiff Argued That the Collision Could Have Been Avoided If the Tramway

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

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.

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

Had he been wearing the safety belt, he would not have been killed. The second defense that Ford Motor Company has is that the purpose of a car is to drive it and not to crash a car so that it spun. Since, the door flew open during a spin, Ford Motor Company was not liable for the death of Chancit. The normal use of a car is not to send it into a spin. The third defense that Ford Motor Company has is that Chancit was suffering from food poisoning and was unwell, that was why he was thrown out of the car. The fourth defense is that the car is meant for normal driving. The safety measures in the car were adequate for normal driving. Since, Chancit was driving in a closed lane and possibly at a speed that was higher than that permitted, Ford Motor Company was no liable. III. The City of Los Angeles is liable of negligence. The sign board it placed said Left lane closed ahead, whereas, it was Right lane closed ahead. The City of Los Angeles had a duty of care to ensure that it placed the correct signs so that motorists were not misguided. There was a breach of duty because the City of Los Angeles placed the wrong sign and this misguided Chancit into an accident. There was direct cause between the placement of the wrong sign and the accident that killed Chancit. There was legal causation. Chancit suffered harm because he was killed. In other words, the City of Los Angeles is guilty of negligence. The court will rule in favor of Chancit and award his widow

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.

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.

The plaintiffs in this case are Amber Arlington and Madison Metroplex. The causes of action available to Ms. Metroplex are direct negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring and harassment. Ms. Arlington would have a cause of action to recover as a bystander to the accident if she had a familial relationship to Ms. Metroplex. As she does not, there is no cause of action available to Ms. Arlington. The defendants are Forever 21 and the Austin Forever 21’s store manager. Their available defenses are comparative negligence and assumption of risk.

The cause of action were noted as motor vehicle and general negligence. Negligence is defined as; “the breach of the duty of all persons, as established by state tort law, to act reasonably and to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings and interactions with others.” (Lau &Johnson, 2014, p. 139). Specifically the filing stated the plaintiff alleges the acts of defendant were negligent; the acts were the legal (proximate) cause of injuries and damages to plaintiff (Judicial Council of California, 1982, form CCP

If it has been found that your actions have been the cause for the accident and the plaintiff receiving injuries, then the only defense left for you is to prove negligence on the part of the plaintiff also.

(2) The plaintiff alleges that Great Wall Construction Specialists Ltd. was negligent in their maintenance of the lookout towers where he fell through the floorboards and thus, is liable to him for the injuries he sustained as a result of his accident.

In the case Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Company, the Plaintiff (Mrs. Palsgraf) was standing on a railroad platform when two men running by with railroad employees, fell and dropped a package. The seemingly innocent package contained fireworks, which in turn exploded, and some of the fragments injured the by standing woman, who then sued for negligence. The issue, however, is what constitutes negligence, and what duty citizens have to ensure the safety of those around them.

Negligence claims are based on three corresponding legal ideas; duty, breach, and causation. If you have been injured, first you must prove that the allegedly negligent party owed you a duty of care. Second, you must prove that their action or inaction breached the required duty. Finally, your injuries must have been caused by this breach. If you are able to prove each of these elements to negligence you will have a chance to receive compensation for your injuries. The defense, however, will also have the opportunity to raise one of several defenses. If successful, they may escape liability entirely or the compensation they owe you may be reduced.

Accordingly, if we can show that the plaintiff was negligent at all, her personal injury claim fails. While in theory this principal sounds incredibly beneficial to us—to be sure, it is—in practice given the unpredictability of Baltimore City juries, it would not be prudent to rely exclusively on this affirmative defense. Rather, we will aim to show not only that the plaintiff was negligent, but that the plaintiff was negligent and you were not. Your question in this regard really goes to the heart of the whole case. Accordingly, I would like to see more evidence before I give you an opinion as to the probability that you would be considered liable

The event of getting injured was foreseeable by the defendant (Transfield Pty Ltd) as the plaintiff (Castro) was allowed to carry the oxygen cylinders without the help of the other team members for the period of two weeks in which he was working. A common knowledge of the defendant is enough to foresee that continuing to carry the oxygen cylinders alone without the help of other employee will lead to injury.

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.