The Law Exists For The Society From Getting Hurt By Bill Gander

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

Duty of care is a legal obligation towards children and adults using services that are required to work in the best interest of the child or adult and also using care practice which is not detrimental to health well-being and safety of the child or adult. Duty of care also means carrying out practice only within the services own level of competence, role and responsibility.

Duty of care n: A requirement, that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.

Duty of care is a requirement that all health and social care professionals, and organisations providing health and care services, must put the interests of the people who use their service first. They also have to do everything in their power to keep people safe of any harm, neglect or risk. As an individual healthcare worker you owe a duty of care to your service users, your colleagues, your employer, yourself and the public interest. All duty of care is described I Code of Practice. Duty of care means that you must aim to provide high quality care to the best of your ability. If for any reason you can’t do this then you must say so. You must adhere to a standard of reasonable care and you are expected to:

A duty of care is the requirement that all health and social care professionals, and organisations providing health and care services, must put the interests of the people who use their services first. They also have to do everything in their power to keep people safe from harm. People have a right to expect that when a professional is providing support, they will be kept safe and not be neglected or exposed to any unnecessary risks. The expression is that we ‘owe’ a duty of care to the people we work with. ‘Owe’ is a useful word to describe the nature of the duty of care because it is just like a debt. It is something that you must pay as a part of choosing to become a

Today’s laws are rooted in long standing religions. First used as methods to live a relatively healthy and righteous life now they govern our behavior. People do not have to follow the law, but instead choose to because they feel it is their moral responsibility.

A duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeable harm others. A definition from Wikipedia

Duty of care is defined as ‘legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing damage’. Duty of care in my role at work includes keeping the children safe and away from harm at all times whilst under my care but also to allow them to take risks and

Principles for implementing duty of care in health, social care or children’s and young people’s settings

Wikipedia describes “a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others”. I understand that a Duty of Care within my work role requires many things. Firstly, the children are placed into the environment by parents who want the best for their children. They expect they staff to have a degree of knowledge and understanding including education and training, to enable them to look after their children to the best of

Since the beginning of time, there have been rules and laws in place. Originating as merely unwritten rules of nature, created to ensure balance and order within the animal kingdom, laws have evolved and adapted alongside mankind. Regardless of their origins, it is evident that laws have developed into the backbone of our civilisation, making them an essential part of our society. There are a plethora of functions of law, the most notable being that it establishes rules of conduct, provides a system of enforcement, defends rights and freedoms, protects society and disciplines the wrongdoer, and resolves conflicts.

According to the case Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 the duty of care states that the reasonable foreseeability test is sufficient to establish a duty of care where the damage is physical and careless manner is an act or an omission. There is a high risk of serious physical damage from the slippery mess not being cleaned up. Brett was the manager at the Tavern and owed every party goer, including Annie a duty of care. The physical damage that the plaintiff suffered was a fractured back. This test must be executed to determine whether a duty of care exists and looks to the foreseeability of a reasonable person in the position of the defendant. According to Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781 a

Prakash does owe a duty of care to Shamilla. He was in breach of his

Law is a necessity. Without the law, there is nothing to hold society together. The law, the legal code of society, is the product of the moral code of society and therefore, legality and morality are inseparable. This being the case, the law must support morality, regardless of its typical function, which is to define what is legal in a society. The problem of the law backing a generally consented to moral standard poses a fearful and tragic outlook on the law itself. James Devlin writes in his essay entitled “Morals and the Criminal Law” that “society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics no society can exist…If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; if, having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate.” (Devlin, 378) Therefore, not only does a community have the right to enforce its moral convictions on its members, that community has an obligation to itself and to its members to uphold a common morality through the law.

The law is something many people would associate as serious and unamusing. Mortimer Zuckerman would fall into that category. In fact, Zuckerman felt so strongly about this matter that he “decided law was the exact opposite of sex; even when it was good, it was lousy.” Zuckerman remains the Chief Executive Officer of Boston Properties, worth over two and a half billion U.S. dollars. A gentleman of such high status could not make such an assertion without some sort of education regarding the matter at hand. The law is exactly the opposite of sex. The law is not completed by any living thing, remains alone, is completely silent, fully clothed, utterly boring and does not engage nor stimulate the brain.