Tort Law of Negligence Essay

Negligence occurs when a citizen has suffered loss due to the carelessness of another. The first element of a negligence case is to find if the duty of care, the obligation of an individual to hold responsibility while performing any acts affecting others, is breached (Negligence and the Duty of Care, 2013). The Supreme Court of Queensland’s decision in May 2011, during the trial of French v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2011] QSC 105 demonstrates how a taxi driver breached his duty of care and therefore, would be liable for the death of his passenger (Hamilton, 2011).

Negligence is upholding a certain leavel of care by determining if it meets the four components nessessary for a claim; duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case duty was not handled correctly. Duty means you agree to take care of a health care patients. THe girls working at the Good Samaritan Home did not take proper care of the residents. Breach of duty is broken down into four categories; Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance. In this case the breach of duty refers to nonfeasance. There was a failure to act, by no other employees bringing the ause to attention. Causation requires an injury to be due to the healthcare professionals negligence. In the case of abuse in the Good Samaritan case there was no other way the injuries could have happened. The damages refers to the injuries caused to the residents.

Negligence: Breach of a legal duty to act reasonably; the direct cause of injury to another.

The plaintiff, Christopher Moor was injured on the premises of the defendant, Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd, on January 14 2009. While descending a set of stairs to an ice skating rink on the premises, Moor slipped and fell, resulting in a fracture to his right ankle. After further examination, Moor was found to have sustained a fracture of the right fibula, dorsal displacement of distal fragment, ligament disruption and widening of the ankle joint. He was wearing ice skating blades at the time of the accident.

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

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.

A health care provider must understand many aspects of statutory duty. Duty is “a legal obligation imposed on one to conform to a recognized standard of care to safe guard the rights of others”. The standard of care is usually related to medical malpractice cases. Standard of care is defined as “the caution and prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances or by appropriate authority for such situations”. This is mainly of importance because all physicians are expected to perform within the guidelines of this duty, and this standard or care changes depending on the circumstances. “Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witnesses regarding whether the standard was met”(Showalter, 2014 p 139). Negligence results in the failure to meet this standard of care, and the jury usually decides if the defendant is guilty of committing a negligent act. Causation is an aspect of negligence. The defendant could be held liable for negligence if the act was considered to be foreseeable, and if the injury occurred from a breach of duty.

Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use

In comparison to Police and fire services, Lord Woolf suggested in Kent v Griffiths[9] 'arguments based on public policy are much weaker in the case of ambulance service than they are in the case of police or the fire service '. Leading case which portrays the duty of care for the ambulance services towards a patient in their care, as they accepted the claimants call they become a patient which means they have a duty to them at that moment. Although ambulance owes a duty of care towards Grace needs to determine if delay was breach of failure to take reasonable care. In the judgment Mr Justice Turner said: ' In the absence of any reasonable excuse for this delay I am driven to conclude that the delay was culpable ' breached duty as no reasonable excuse for the delay. However from Lord Woolf’s judgement also in kent:[10] '… resources, whether in the provision of sufficient drivers or attendants, different situations would apply '. The ambulance has no duty if not enough resources at their disposal during accident, due to ‘high demand for ambulances at that time’ during Grace 's accident means that they are not liable.

As a defence, contributory negligence has been used successfully to reduce the damages for the defendant to pay. In Wei Fan v South Eastern Sydney Local Health District (No.2)11, this principle was introduced by the defence to illustrate that they were not liable for the exacerbation of the plaintiff’s condition. The plaintiff attempted to claim for damages for the following conditions; diabetes type 2, progression of cholecystitis, fractured skull and traumatic brain injury. By applying contributory negligence to the case, the liability of the conditions was entirely placed on the plaintiff due to discharging himself from three hospitals within the district against medical advice. Discharging himself prematurely was proven to have lead to the exacerbation of the

This case is based on the tort of negligence as the appellant feels that the respondent has not fulfilled the criteria for duty of care. As stated in the Civil Liability Act 2002(Cth) to determine if a person is not negligent it must be known if the risk was foreseeable and if the risk was not insignificant. If those two conditions were met in those circumstances, what precautions a reasonable person would have taken need to be considered and whether or not the respondent failed to do so.

Going further, the authors talk about the duty of care of negligence through an act or omission. For example in lawsuit case where there is an automobile accident the victim party often based on the assumption that the other party was negligent. For the authors this concept lack of coherence and clarity because of the negligence has developed and internal “pseudo-logic” where judges decides to whom the duty of care is attributed to. This argument I think is baseless because certain characteristics have to be meet in order for tort of negligence to be pronounced against the defendant. The defendant who owned a duty toward victim must have violated that duty which caused some injuries to the plaintiff. We should also note that these injuries have to result in

This paper will discuss the difference between negligence, gross negligence, and malpractice. Based on this information, the author will provide a position statement along with a rational for his decision. This position statement will indicate whether the case presented in the Neighborhood’s newspaper article, entitled “Amputation Mishap; Negligence”, presents a case of negligence, gross negligence, or malpractice. The importance of documentation and its correlation to potential negligence will also be presented. The ethical principles that would guide my practice if I were the nurse in the news article’s situation will be discussed. Examples of how the article case would be

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.

Specific intent: the intent to accomplish the precise act with which one has been charged