Ethical And Legal Aspects Of Tort Law

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).

ASSAULT, BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ARE EXAMPLES OF ____ TORTS THAT INVOLVE INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON'S BODY.

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

Art and Bill were leaving work one afternoon when they were approached by Charlie, who was

With the prominence of the tort reform debate on state legislative floors across the country, many states have introduced and even passed bills that address reform issues within their respective states. Many reform proponents feel that changes in the civil justice system should

Rule: Battery is the unconsented harmful or offensive touching with the intent to harm or offend. Leroy did intend to immobilize John when he grabbed him, but this was done in the defense of a third party.

Continual support to victims of crime is a necessary service in any just society; this support is especially needed in the event that a convicted offender is exonerated. In the United States when a crime is committed the state, not the victim, owns and prosecutes the case so historically the victims’ rights have been neglected. In the modern era victims’ rights are being improved during the trial and sentencing phases of the criminal justice process; however in the event of an exoneration the victim is routinely revictimized and this problem needs to be corrected.

Losing a loved one is extremely painful. The family is in a time of grieving and there are practical matters to consider such as paying for the burial, the funeral, and any remaining medical bills. When the deceased provided the main source of income for the family, looking to the future can be daunting. Many untimely deaths could have been prevented. In cases such as medical malpractice, auto accidents, and workplace disasters there is almost always an act of negligence. It is important for the family to continue living and in their time of need thinking about a lawsuit is the least of their concerns. Discussing a wrongful death claim with an experienced personal injury attorney may be the right step for the family to take but a difficult one.

According to the Texas Attorney General, “A Temporary Protection Order is a civil court order issued to prevent continuing acts of family violence, sexual assault, human trafficking or stalking. The Temporary Protection Order offers civil legal protection from domestic violence to both women and men victims. It is a written statement from a court that tells the abuser to stop the abuse or face serious legal consequences.” The Texas criminal code regards family violence as a serious danger and threat to society and its members. Victims of family violence are entitled to the maximum

The plaintiff’s cause of action in this case would be the failure of Porsche to properly supply the 2005 Carrera GT with proper crash preventative measures and passenger safety features to protect the passengers of the car in the foreseeable event of a car crash. As a whole the case would be classified as alleged product liability negligence against Porsche, for failing to provide an electronic stability control system to protect against swerving to prevent crashes in a car that is advertised as a street legal race car. Also for providing side door reinforcements that fall below mass produced vehicles standards due to lack of proper welds and the poor strength of the material used, therefore inadequate to ensure safety of car passenger in the event of a crash. Lastly, for allowing a faulty gas line to be implemented in their

The purpose of civil law is to “deal with the disputes between individuals, organizations, or between the two, in which compensation is awarded to the victim,” (“Civil Law vs Criminal Law.”, 2012). Civil law applies when there is a dispute between private parties, and the government is not involved. The lack of government involvement also leads to easier negotiations. Civil cases can be much more flexible since there is typically no law being broken and thus, no legal actions have to be taken. The less rigid civil law cases also generally allow them to be settled quickly and without controversy. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than half of general civil trials conclude in state courts, meaning they are able to reach an agreement and do not have to continue spending unnecessary time and money on the case (“Civil Justice.”, 2017).

It is human nature to make mistakes; however, mistakes that cause harm to someone else could be considered negligence. In the case with Mr. Benson in the Neighborhood Newspaper article, a mistake was made that was irreversible. He went into the hospital to have his leg amputated, and the doctor amputated the wrong leg. The question is was the doctor negligent in his practice? Is the amputation of the wrong leg considered to be malpractice on the doctor’s part? This paper will differentiate between negligence, gross negligence, and malpractice. After differentiating between these terms, it will be determined if the doctor operating on Mr. Benson was considered to be negligent, gross negligent or was this mistake malpractice.

Two individuals, the Baker brothers have been long-term employees of Bin Inc. a company earning $240,000 per year and the only company providing food to a chain of guesthouse. The Bakers each make $55,000 per year. The contract between Bin Inc. and the guesthouses was established in 1981 and is currently being renewed every three years on September 30 taking effect January 1 of the following year. Bin Inc. and the guesthouses agreed to have four deliveries per day so that guests are adequately provide for. The Bakers are aware that net profit from Bin Inc. catering operation average $240,000 per year. They also know that late arrivals have caused tension between the guesthouses and Bin Inc. a scenario that are contrary to the agreements between the parties. They have started their own food company (Bakers Inc.) and did not rule out service to the guesthouses. Since starting the company, the Bakers have been absent from Bin Inc. on a number of occasions without pay and this has contributed to the deteriorated service of Bin Inc. to the guesthouses. In addition, seven guests at the guesthouses suffered food poisoning after consuming the food (no fault of their own) on July 18, 2012 and approached the guesthouses who then informed Bin Inc. The tainted food can be traced to the work of Farknn Baker. The Bakers have conceded that Bin Inc. had a recent City inspection on July 10 and was given 15 days to improve sanitary conditions at their kitchen or face closure. Bin

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

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