The Importance Of The Common Law Approach To Negligence

The area in private law which is involved includes tort law of negligence. This case involves the alleged perpetrator (Woolworths) exploiting and interfering with the rights of the alleged victim and also failing to fulfill their duty of care towards the customer, in this case Kathryn Strong. Tort law of negligence entitles the alleged victim to take legal action against the alleged perpetrator which was successfully met in the Strong v Woolworths Ltd as woolworths failed to provide an adequate cleaning system to recognise any spillages resulting in Woolworths being accused guilty of negligence.

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).

This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the compensation culture.

The current law in place regarding teacher’s liability for personal injury is effective in placing responsibility on the state and away from the teacher. This is reflected through the Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2013 (QLD) which amended the Public Service Act 2008 (QLD) as well as other legislation. The aim of the amendments is to provide ‘legislative immunity against civil liability.Liability will instead lie with the state.’ The Queensland government’s clear intention for this amendment was ‘not about reducing responsibility and accountability of public servants: it is about ensuring that we have a framework in place that supports our people when they do jobs we ask of them and do them in an appropriate standard.’ The government also proposed in the amendment that ‘the state has a right to recover contributions from employees who are subsequently found to have engaged in conduct other than in good faith and where it amounts to gross negligence.’Subsequently, while the Queensland government has allowed for such legislative framework, transfiguration of political climates may affect the status of this legislation.

This analysis has taken place in regards to the civil case of Moor v Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd [2014]. This case involves Moor the plaintiff accusing Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd the defendant of breaching their duty of care and simply failing to exercise the standard of care required by law. This case involves a civil wrongdoing. A civil wrong doing is generally a breach of a person 's rights. This generally associates with tort. This case involves a specific component of tort, negligence which exercises the legal right for a plaintiff to seek compensation for the damages caused by another party who were seen as legally liable. The case analysed within this report sees a Mr Christopher Moor sue Liverpool Catholic Club

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

INTRODUCTION In a scene from the 2008 film, The Reader , a female prison guard that had served during the Nazi occupation, Hanna Schmitz, is tried as a war criminal in a court set up by the victors of the war. One of the war crimes she is being charged with is for letting 300 female Jewish prisoners perish in a church that had caught on fire. Despite Schmitz’s defence that it was her duty to guard the prisoners and unlocking the church doors would have resulted in definite chaos, her pleas fell on deaf ears and she was successfully convicted. By isolating that particular event and eliminating the political duress that Schmitz was under at that time, it is important to understand that she was not the one who started the fire and was criticised and convicted solely on her inaction to unlock the church doors and let the prisoners out as she had the keys.

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

This essay will explain what the formal process on how an Act of Parliament is created. I will discuss the key concepts and procedures which are relevant to law making which will be supported with relevant statutes and case law. Furthermore I will also discuss the different stages which are involved in creating a law. I will also assess the controls and systems that are in place which are used to regulate the source of law. Finally, I will analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the literal rule.

It is the opinion of this essay that this could be an effective method in combating the breaching of any Health and Safety rules; strict liability may allow enforcement agencies to ‘Strengthen their position’ (Roe, p.211.1) as potential offenders are aware that if any prosecution is brought against them, there is a good chance of conviction, due to the nature of strict liability. Elliot and Quinn (p.33.1) tell us that ‘strict liability makes enforcing offences easier.’ In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v A-G (1985), the defendants were involved in building

The family of Spc. Kevin Shumaker, has accused the Army of criminal negligence in his death. Shumaker, of Livermore, California, was only 24 when he died of rabies on August 21, 2011, in a New York hospital. According to a military investigation, he was bitten on Combat Outpost Base Chamkani on January 11, 2011 while trying to break up a fight between a base dog and a wild one. While the investigation confirmed that Spc. Shumaker had told several people of the dog bite, it faulted him for not informing his chain of command or seeking immediate medical care. The report stated that this oversight meant that no timely rabies treatment was administered to him ("Parents Accuse Army", 2012). Rabies is invariably fatal once symptoms emerge, while it is completely curable if treated early.

The court system does not seem to base their judgment on legal elements and legal facts but a major consideration on public policy and interest. This can be seen in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital , where the ratio is that the patient would have died anyway in spite of the doctor’s examination. To impose a liability on the doctor would give rise to many claims, involving many unnecessary claims. However, doctors’ duty is to examine a patient and decide on the plan of treatment, where in this case, the doctor did not even examine the patient. The reluctance of the court to impose a liability on public bodies can also be seen in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police . The court was reluctant to impose a liability on the police force, even when the Taylor Report reported that the accident was caused by the negligence of the police force, as they let too many supporters in. There are enough facts in these two cases to impose a liability on the doctor and the police department respectively, however, the reluctant approach from the court towards public bodies have resulted in unsuccessful claims in these two cases.

In most cases the ‘but for’ test is the method used for establishing factual causation. ‘But for’ the defendant 's wrongdoing, the claimant would not have suffered damage. However, causation becomes problematic when more than one cause arises, since the onus is upon the claimant to establish which party caused their injury or loss. The material elements test is crucial to cases relating to mesothelioma.

The common law duty of care was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL) and refined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL). Any party including public authorities may owe a duty of care to another if particular conditions are fulfilled. The Caparo conditions apply to public bodies in respect of whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on their actions.

This paper is divided into two parts. The first part will examine the definitional clauses of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and review its scope through case law to show the present position of the law. The argument in the first part will pitch patients and victims of medical negligence cases within the scope of the statute.