The Possible Responsibility Of Xerox Supermarket

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

In fact, given the shopkeeper’s position and incentive to sell products and to keep loyal customers, there are few actions the shopkeeper can perform that are not without suspicion of selfish purpose. The shopkeeper must face a situation that tests his will in order to determine if his following action have moral worth.

The judges considered the effect of the severity of the risk by mentioning Shellharbour City Council v Johnson, which states that where the harm posed by an obvious risk is serious, an unreasonable response to the risk results in a breach of duty of care. It was found that the bollard created a ‘real and significant hazard for cyclists.’ On these factors, the judges found that the respondent’s response to the risk was not reasonable.

To decide if there is the foreseeability of harm the Court will analyse what another reasonable person would do in the Silverline’s position. Silverline is a professional society and they are expected to meet standards of safety that any other of that professional person

In order to state a claim for IIED, a plaintiff must allege “intentional or reckless” conduct. Lasater, 194 Md. App. at 448. “To meet the ‘intentional or reckless’ criterion of the first element, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant either desired to inflict severe emotional distress, knew that such distress was certain or substantially certain to result from his conduct, or acted recklessly in deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that the emotional distress will follow. Floor, 78 Md. App. at 175 (emphases in original); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 8A (““Intentional” when used in this context means “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.”); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 (“If he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct

Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account. The argument that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given

According to the UCC §§ 2-609(2) and 2-609(4) Between merchants the reasonableness of grounds for insecurity and the adequacy of any assurance offered

*take precautions against the risks caused by flammable or explosive hazards, electrical equipment, noise and radiation

• 32. You must act without delay if you believe that you, a colleague or anyone else may be putting someone at risk

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

The Joint Commission also addresses safety issues through the publication and distribution of the Sentinel Event which identifies a severe breach in safety and addresses ways on how to improve processes and to prevent harm in the future. It also publishes the National Patient Safety Goals which address healthcare safety and ways to solve problems that focus on issues such as identifying patients correctly, improving communication among staff, and administering medications safely, just to name a few. “A majority of Joint Commission standards are directly related to safety, addressing such issues as medication use, infection control, surgery and anesthesia, transfusions, restraint and seclusion, staffing and staff competence, fire safety, medical equipment, emergency management, and security. The standards also include requirements for preventing accidental harm; responding to patient safety events; and the organization’s responsibility to tell patients about the outcomes of their care” (TJC,

She became aware of the puddle when the plaintiff fell and asked for help. Nobody alerted the defendant that water spilled in one of the aisles. Additionally, the defendant’s employee checked the aisles earlier in a routine check at 10AM and found no spill in the aisle. While the employee did spray the cleaning spray in the aisles the night before, he’s certain that the spray would not have caused the puddle or a slippery surface. Thus, the defendant could not have known about the condition and the risk.

12. Tiffany hires Tim to drive her car for business purposes. Tim informs Tiffany that his driver’s license if suspended, but Tiffany disregards that and still permits him to drive her car. Who will be held liable if Tim gets into an accident who will be held liable?

Carelessness is the inability to utilize such care as a sensibly judicious and cautious individual would use under comparative conditions. It is the most generally affirmed reason for activity in the United States. It is lead underneath that which society considers sensible. At the point when such nonsensical lead is the proximate reason for damage to someone else or his property, the on-screen character might be subject in tort for carelessness. For the most part, carelessness laws exist as a non-criminal controller of lead in the public arena. Those people whose lead falls beneath the required least standard of care might be subject for the subsequent substantial damage, including demise, and property harm.

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