The Tort Law Imposes Liability

The tort law section that falls into this case is negligence. Negligence is made up of three elements which determine negligence and duty of care is owed in this case State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

There are many defendants in this case. First and foremost Dale, the loss prevention officer for Wal-Mart, is a defendant because he intentionally restrained Bob against his will and the restraint was unlawful. Dale also failed to follow company rules; Dale was supposed to watch a video that explained how to catch and deal with thieves but decided not to watch the video. The second defendant would be Dale’s supervisor. The supervisor recorded a pass on an exam that dale did not take. The exam Dale failed to write was based on the video that Dale did not watch. The third defendant would be Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart assumes liability because they could be at fault for not properly training staff. Bob would want to take action on

Since this person has a duty to other drivers on the road to be constantly aware of his surroundings, then he would be civilly liable for his negligence. Meaning, even if he unintentionally ran the stop sign, he still responsible. For example, in the textbook the authors give a great example of what could have happen to the defendant: “John is driving down the street and is obeying all traffic laws. John takes his eyes off the road for a second to light a cigarette and unintentionally runs through a stop sign, striking another automobile crossing the intersection and seriously injuring the driver of that car” (Chamelin & Thomas, 2012, p. 58). In this case John took his eyes off the road, and it resulted in another person being harmed. The same could have happen to the defendant; therefore, in the possibility of causing an accident the defendant can be charged with reckless driving and civil negligence. Consequently, the court should not have acquitted the

Over the past decade, the increase in participation from recreational sporting activities to organized has increased significantly (Taniguchi, 2003). With more individuals taking part, the amount of injuries has escalated and the amount of negligent lawsuits soon followed. The courts have had to acclimate themselves and look at sporting injuries through the lens of tort law (Harvard Law Review, 2008). The landmark case in the state of California, Knight v. Jewett, the state supreme court upheld the original ruling that participants who knowingly cause injury to another contestant outside of the normal rules of conduct while participating in a sporting activity, are liable or negligent, changed the course how courts would rule in tort cases (Harvard Law Review, 2008). Hence, tort law is now a leading point of discussion in athletic and physical education departments in our local school districts (Taniguchi, 2003). Included in the discussion is intentional tort, when a player injuries another participant purposely (Wolohan, 2013). For intentional tort to be ruled on, three essentials must be present: 1.an injury must have occurred, 2. the cause of injury is due to a negligent act, 3. the act that caused the injury must be intentional (Wolohan, 2013). Thus, the merging of recreational activities, extreme sports, and physical education programs, intentional tort law will be looked at in the school setting.

The Plaintiff attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic to enter a gas station. The defendants' driver was speeding and ran a yellow light then struck the plaintiffs' car.

Alexis- Negligence and Intentional torts both contribute to the health industry. Negligence is something that most people sue for, and all health professionals should understand how to avoid these situations. For example: the physician should make sure he/she has a complete understanding about the individual medical need, before releasing them. By doing this they can avoid the chances of misdiagnosing or creating mire problems. Protecting the patients right is and should a mission for each health provider to avoid a potential law suit. All professional should be knowledgeable about the importance of intentional torts a how to avoid crossing that path. Fastidious discussion post for this module, keep up the good work.

The unintentional tort case that we have chosen to analyze through the use of various legal elements of tort law, is the wrongful death lawsuit filed against Porsche by Meadow Rain Walker for the death of her father, Paul Walker. On November 30th, 2013, famed movie star Paul Walker and friend, Roger Rodas, passed away in an unfortunate solo-vehicle collision in South California. At the time of the crash they were travelling in a 2005 Porsche Carrera GT when the car swerved off of the road and came in contact with a power pole and several trees before fire engulfed the car. Both Walker and Rodas perished due to injuries received in the crash.

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

Negligence is used in tort in order to provide a remedy for those who have suffered any loss or injury, due to a defendant’s actions. If a defendant had a duty of care towards the claimant, then a remedy can be enforced to cover for any losses. Factual causation in negligence establishes whether it was the defendant in fact who caused the harm, in order to determine the factual causation, the ‘but for’ test is used. The ‘but for’ test includes asking the question of ‘but for the defendant’s carelessness, would the claimant have escaped harm?’ The factual causation would be determined if the answer is ‘yes’, as harm would have not occurred if the defendant did not breach the duty of care. If the answer is ‘no’ then the defendant would not be held liable.

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?

However this did not replace the approach of unintentional damage. In R v Briggs 1977 the defendant damaged a car and his appeal was successful as the judge did not explain the term 'reckless ' and the fact that the defendant 's state of mind has to be taken into account. The definition of when a man is reckless was changed in the case of R v Parker 1977 and was changed again in R v Stephenson1979 . The defendant had tried to sleep in a hollow he had made in the side of a haystack and he lit a fire whish set fore to the stack and damaged property worth £3500. However he suffered from a long history of schizophrenia and expert evidence at trial suggested that he may not have had the same ability to foresee or

“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.