The Duty And Breach Of Duty Essay

Section 9(2)(a) of the Civil Liability Act states that when deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the courts consider the probability of harm occurring if care was not taken. Secondly, s 9(2)(b) considers what the gravity/ seriousness of the risk was and whether the defendant should adopt special care if s/he knows that people with particular needs are exposed to the foreseeable risk. However, the teacher/ school authority is not required to protect the student against all risk and sometimes a reasonable response is to do

4. If school officials knew a violent act was threatened to occur or if there should have been a school official on duty where the students were and was not, the school could be held liable for the injury.

There are many questions and arguments that remain about the standard of care within schools. Should the current standard of care in relation to schools be increased or remain the same or be substantially reduced? Does law of torts make a teacher’s job too difficult? Should schools always be held liable when a student is injured? ‘A tort is a “civil wrong” and for someone to commit a tort they have to interfere with another person’s rights, or fail in their legal obligations to that person, and this causes the person to suffer.’ (Drew Hopkins, 2008) An example case of civil wrong is State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

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 plaintiff was a student of his class and the defendant evidence was that he was unaware of the firing of pellets but the if he had had been aware he would have without a doubt taken the actions to shut it down and stop the pellets being shot across the class room. If the defendant had taken actions to stop the students from doing these actions the chain of causations would have been avoided and the student wouldn’t have been struck in the eye by a paper pellet. A case related to this Johns v Minister of Education, Chinner and Beck (1981) 28 SASR 206 the defendant was being sued for negligence. The case was the defendant who had been teaching a class when she had become aware of two boys using catapults to fire ballpoint pens. The defendant told the students to throw the catapults in the bin and later in that lesson she was not aware that a student had retained a catapult and the plaintiff was struck in the eye when a ballpoint pen was discharged by a catapult. In this case the teacher cannot be found negligence because she had told all students to throw out the catapults and to her knowledge they had and so in comparison to the first case the teacher was not adequately supervising the class and had not stopped the students from shooting paper pellets across the

Director and actor Spike Lee presents his "truth" about race relations in his movie Do the Right Thing. The film exhibits the spectacle of black discrimination and racial altercations. Through serious, angry, and loud sounds, Lee stays true to the ethnicity of his characters, all of which reflect their own individualism. Lee uses insulting diction and intense scenes to show how severe racism can lead to violence.

There is a need that each school, its administrators and teachers should know the law of torts. In order to create a "culture of safety" principals should manage the risk of negligence to the faculty and students. As Burgett and Schwartz state, “being a teacher, administrator, board member, school employee, parent, or even a student is tricky business these days” (p.9). Therefore, each decision or actions’ steps should be made based upon ethical and legal principles. The particular high school puts an emphasis on health and safety issues. The school, the buildings, and the classroom are certainly the most critical areas of an educational institution where safety and health take place but also behavior and attitude reflect the importance of the serious business of learning. Therefore, the following three legal issues: unsupervised students, hallways, and field trips demand some improvements, accommodations or extra care to maintain the safety and healthy environment for students and employees.

In order to prove Thomas liable in this situation, there would have to be evidence of proximate cause (Essex, 2016). The student, or student’s family, would need to be able to prove that there is a relationship between the principal’s breach of duty, and the injury the student suffered (Essex, 2016). I have dedicated the remainder of this paragraph to describing the ways in which Thomas may be in breach of his duty. Thomas has the responsibility as the school principal to ensure that Homewood High School has highly qualified teachers. It is his responsibility to recommend to the board the person best suited for the

Evidence of his wife’s adultery was presented at trial and the husband was granted a divorce on that ground by the trial court. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The trial court also held that the separation agreement was invalid due to terms of unconscionability and constructive fraud or duress. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d

In the case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a law may not punish a status; i.e., one may not be punished to being an alcoholic or for being addicted to drugs. However, of course, one may be punished for actions such as abusing drugs. The question becomes; What if the status “forces” the action? What if a person, because of his/her addiction to drugs, is “forced” by the addiction to purchase and abuse the illegal drugs? Would punishing that person be unfairly punishing a status?

Due to my recent troubles at work I have been counseled twice in the past several weeks. This has given me a lot of time to reflect at the way I have really presented myself in the Army thus far. I have not always been the best Soldier that I could have been during most of the time I that I have been in so far. Thinking about this does bother me, it means that I could be trying harder to get ahead and better myself as a Soldier and a person. Lets say for example I have been late to work twice in the past several weeks not only to include missing a pt formation altogether. I did this by not ensuring that i had met alo of my neds to ensure that i woudl wake up in the morning. But by doing

Case 37.5: Duty of Loyalty. Edward Hellenbrand ran a comedy club known as the Comedy Cottage in Rosemont, Illinois. The business was incorporated, with Hellenbrand and his wife as the corporation’s sole shareholders. The corporation leased the premises in which the club was located. Hellenbrand hired Jay Berk as general manager of the club. Two years later, Berk was made vice present of the corporation and given 10 percent of its stock. Hellenbrand experienced health problems, and moved to Nevada, leaving Berk to manage the daily affaires of the business. Four years later, the ownership of the building where the Comedy Cottage was located changed hands. Shortly thereafter, the club’s lease on the premises expired. Hellenbrand instructed Berk to negotiate a new lease. Berk arranged a month-to-month lease, but had the lease agreement drawn up in his name instead of the corporation. When Hellenbrand learned of Berk’s move, he fired him. Berk continued to lease the building in his own name, and opened his own club, the Comedy Company, Inc., there. Hellenbrand sued Berk for an injunction to prevent Berk from leasing the building. Comedy Cottage, Inc. v. Berk, 145 III.App.3d 355, 495 N.E.2d 1006, Web 1986 III.App.Lexis 2486 (Appellate Court of Illinois).

Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed, eg, road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said:

“I would rather be a good man than a great king” said the character Thor in Thor: The Dark World. In these words we find a frightening tension. Almost everyone agrees that it is good to be ethical; this is an easy affirmation. It is much more difficult, though, when ethics is in direct opposition to success. This dichotomy- between ethics and success- will no doubt confront an engineer during a professional career of any substantial length. Can you say that you would rather be a good man than rich? Or popular? Or a successful engineer? What should happen when an engineer faces this question? One real world example that can shed some light on this problem is what is known as bid shopping. This essay will provide a thorough definition of the problem of bid shopping and the ethical dilemma surrounding it. It will then apply the ethical theories of Duty Ethics and Virtue Ethics to the question. And seek to show that bid shopping is unethical according to both ethical theories.

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