The Case Of Negligent Misstatement

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

Negligence is upholding a certain leavel of care by determining if it meets the four components nessessary for a claim; duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case duty was not handled correctly. Duty means you agree to take care of a health care patients. THe girls working at the Good Samaritan Home did not take proper care of the residents. Breach of duty is broken down into four categories; Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance. In this case the breach of duty refers to nonfeasance. There was a failure to act, by no other employees bringing the ause to attention. Causation requires an injury to be due to the healthcare professionals negligence. In the case of abuse in the Good Samaritan case there was no other way the injuries could have happened. The damages refers to the injuries caused to the residents.

There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial. The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932).

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.

Negligence per se is when there is a form of negligence on the violation of public duty when there is a failure of care administered. It is also applied when a person does something that is not part of reasonable behavior. A plaintiff does not necessarily have to prove otherwise that a reasonable person could have acted any different in a situation. The way for a plaintiff to generally try and prove that the defendant has violated the statute to where the acts of the defendant could have caused damage or pain to where it was against what the statute represents and prevents. For example, if a doctor was operating on a person and accidently leaves an instrument that was used inside of the person that would be considered negligent under those

Negligence is when someone is failing to do something that a reasonable person would do in a similar situation or, doing something that a reasonable person did not do in a similar situation.

Negligence occurs when a citizen has suffered loss due to the carelessness of another. The first element of a negligence case is to find if the duty of care, the obligation of an individual to hold responsibility while performing any acts affecting others, is breached (Negligence and the Duty of Care, 2013). The Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in May 2011, during the trial of French v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2011] QSC 105 demonstrates how a taxi driver breached his duty of care and therefore, would be liable for the death of his passenger (Hamilton, 2011).

Smith would be 70% negligent, Mowit would be 10% negligent, and Chip-it would be 20% negligent. This is because Smith had been told multiple times not to put his foot in the wood chipper and had probably seen the warning on the machine, but put his foot in it anyways. Mowit is also partly negligent because they new Smith did not know how to properly use the wood chipper, they let him use it anyways. Chip-it portion of the negligence is due to having a design defect in the wood chipper but allowed it to be sold anyways. Smith would be 70% negligent, Mowit would be 10% negligent, and Chip-it would be 20% negligent. This is because Smith had been told multiple times not to put his foot in the wood chipper and had probably seen the warning on the machine, but put his foot in it anyways.

It is human nature to make mistakes; however, mistakes that cause harm to someone else could be considered negligence. In the case with Mr. Benson in the Neighborhood Newspaper article, a mistake was made that was irreversible. He went into the hospital to have his leg amputated, and the doctor amputated the wrong leg. The question is was the doctor negligent in his practice? Is the amputation of the wrong leg considered to be malpractice on the doctor’s part? This paper will differentiate between negligence, gross negligence, and malpractice. After differentiating between these terms, it will be determined if the doctor operating on Mr. Benson was considered to be negligent, gross negligent or was this mistake malpractice.

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

In this report is a fully reasoned quantification of, our client, Mr. Steven Pearson’s personal injury claim against Mr. Fred Prendergast.

In Gregg v Scott, Mr. Malcolm Gregg (‘the claimant’), the House of Lords examined the law of negligence in the area of personal injury. In order for the claimant to have a successful claim in court, the onus to shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that a duty of care owed by the doctor, there was a breach of that duty, an injury was sustained, and the negligence on behalf of the doctor Dr. Andrew Scott (‘defendant’) was a cause of the ‘injury’. If these elements are not satisfied, the claimant may lose its entitlement to full compensation.

The law has historically been reluctant to impose a general liability for omissions as opposed to positive acts. This means that there is no general duty of care in tort to act in order to prevent harm occurring to another. In Smith v Littlewoods Organisation, Lord Goff stated clearly that “the common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions”. Similarly, in Yuen Kun Yeu v A-G of Hong Kong, Lord Keith stated that people can ignore their moral responsibilities to prevent harm occurring to another, even when it is easily within their power to do so. He added that it would be unthinkable for there to be “liability in negligence on the part of one who sees another about to walk over a cliff

Cases under the law of mistake can be divided into common, mutual and unilateral mistake; however this discussion is based on unilateral mistake, as Stephen Graw said:

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,