Wrong Widget Case Summary

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

The issue in this case as it relates to the Kentucky tort of negligence is governed by rules or principles established by the courts. The elements of negligence are a duty the defendant owes to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty by the defendant, a causal connection between the breach and the plaintiff's injury, and actual injury. In the absence of any one of these elements, no cause of action for negligence will lie.

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

5. Damages - In this case damages unquestionably exist. Mr. M had significant injuries and has apparently suffered some permanent impacts on his capacity as a result of the episode so the damages element is satisfied.

Those familiar with skiing know that there are risks involved when one chooses to participate in the sport.  Those risks, however, should be associated with self-inflicted harm caused by mistakes that a skier may make and not unforeseen obstacles and dangerous situations.  The injuries sustained by Alex Johnson on the slopes at Bethlehem Ice Solutions (BIS) were not self-inflicted; far from it.  They were the result of negligence on the part of BIS who failed to mark boundaries that separates the slopes and caused Craig to crossover onto another slope, walking directly into Alex’s path and colliding into

malpractice and negligence. The Darling's (Plaintiff) felt that the hospital, nursing staff and emergency room doctor all played an important part in the Plaintiff losing his leg due to neglect.

Cal was a victim to several negligible acts that resulted in the loss of his legs. On the day in question Cal was a passenger in Abe’s car when it was in a collision with Deb’s vehicle. Although he only sustained minor injuries due to the initial impact, another negligible driver, Ann struck both cars causing Cal more traumatic injuries. Once Cal was at the hospital he was informed that he required a surgery to possibly save his legs, but was never explained the requirements or risks involved if the surgery was successful. He unknowingly consented to the surgery which was an unsuccessful, resulting in the loss of use of both of his legs. After the surgery Cal experienced indescribable amounts of pain and suffering, upon returning to the doctor it was discovered one of the surgeons had left a metal clamp inside Cal’s leg and sewed him up, which required additional surgery for its removal. Based on these facts, Cal has many legal rights to recover damages by those liable for his injuries.

As a result of the failure to adhere to the safety precautions before utilizing the automated external defibrillator the patient was severely burned on his neck and shoulders. “The patient can show a legally sufficient relationship between the breach of duty and the injury; this concept is referred to as proximate causation” (). If standards of care had been meet the injury that the patient now suffers could have been prevented.

The contractor, upon the breach of his obligations, he caused some damages to the owner and he should be exposed to forfeiture.

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

In this case, the accident is the proximate cause of Mrs. Smith’s injuries and the medical providers are the intervening cause, as their breach of duty exacerbated Mrs. Smith’s injury to the point of permanent disability and disfigurement.

the nature of the claimed defective condition(s) as it existed prior to, and on the date(s) on which the accident(s)

• loss or damage was suffered as a result of another individual sustaining injury because of defective goods;

The next of Malachowski’s issue is the Special Moral Responsibilities. An entity is morally responsible for an injury if they caused it and they knew what they were doing, or if they could have prevented it. During the last twenty years or so, there are a number of companies that have been held morally responsible in the eyes of the public for injuries that their suppliers have inflicted on some third party. Companies in the apparel industry, toy manufacturing, electronics assembly, and pharmaceutical industry, have been perceived as accountable to the mistreatment of their suppliers, although they have not been directly involved. Even if many companies try to prevent injuries by doing onsite inspections, many times a product miscarry its intention, causing harm to the consumer. Under these circumstances,

After making this agreement, and before the first day of the first concert, the Hall was destroyed by a fire; meaning the concerts couldn’t be performed as intended. Both parties evidently had no thought about the possibility of such a disaster, and had no form of reference to it in their agreement. Blackburn J. in reviewing this case and the doctrine of frustration court said, 'There seems no doubt that where there is a positive contract to do a thing, not in itself unlawful, the contractor must perform it or pay damages for not doing it, although in consequence of unforeseen accidents, the performance of his contract has become unexpectedly burthensome or even impossible. ' However, in the case of Taylor v Caldwell, the contract was neither positive nor absolute but was subject to an implied condition making this rule not applicable as the parties must have known the risk at the start of the contract to make it absolute; therefore the verdict was that neither party was at fault and the doctrine of frustration applied.