The Concept of "The Reasonable Man" as it applies in Negligence actions.
First of all to understand fully the concept of the reasonable man as it applies in Negligence actions an individual needs to understand the concept of law. Law in general can be described as a body of rules imposed by the State and its members. The Law sets a minimum standard of behaviour to maintain for the common good. The Law of Torts has been developed over time and serves a number of purposes, which is mainly influenced by a number of different sets of values. In the tort of Negligence, it can be described as a civil wrong. Negligence is also described as falling under certain standards and as a result of this, breaching a standard of care owed, of the "Reasonable
…show more content…
An injury must be a consequence in which a reasonable careful man would see as a possible outcome of the defendant’s actions. A key case for this is Wagon Mound. In this case it was a civil dispute, damage was caused and a there was a breach of a certain amount of duty of care owed. It was found that the owners were not liable and there was a cut off point to the liability and they were only liable in the end for the damage that was foreseeable. This case introduces a new principle, the idea of reasonable foresee ability and it’s very important as one of the essentials of a Negligence case.
A breach of duty looks at the legal question the content of the duty and the factual question the existence of the duty of care.
When the extent of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is looked at and determined the events following up to the incident of the injury is then examined to find out if the defendant discharged the duty. Even in similar situations where a breach of the duty of care has been distinguished, liability is not always necessarily attached to the plaintiff. Failure alone of the standard of care doesn't give rise to a cause of action for
...ulations in the U.S. judicial system is “most define the law as a system of principles and processes by which people in a society deal with disputes and problems, seeking to solve or settle them without resorting to force” (p. 15). Some situations cannot be rectified in a board meeting. However, negligence is in the category of objectives of tort law, it is also the most popular lawsuit pursued by patients against medical professionals against doctors and healthcare organizations (Bal, 2009). Objectives of Tort Law
A series of events unfolded when George, running late for class, parked his car on a steep section on Arbutus drive and failed to remember to set the parking brake. The outcome of not remembering to set the parking brake caused many issues resulting in scrapping a Prius, breaking through fencing, people on the train sustaining injuries, and finally a truck that jack-knifed and caused a 42-car pileup. Could the parties that were injured, from George’s actions, be recovered from under the negligence theory? To understand if George is negligent, it is best to look at the legal issue, the required elements of negligence, the definition and explanation of each element of the case, and finally to draw a conclusion to determine if George is negligent.
First let us define negligence. “Negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care. The risk must be foreseeable, it must be such that a reasonable person performing the same activity would anticipate the risk (Miller, 2013).” For Myra’s claim of negligence to be proved her team must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Our defense will be based on Myra’s assumption of risk as a judge, contributory negligence, and comparative negligence.
The tort of negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar circumstance. Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. Four elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, a failure to exercise reasonable care. Cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages and proximate cause. Which is showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to compensate victims for any negligence.
The reasonable prudent person standard is a made up person designed from the courts. This was implemented to “test for the appropriate level of care is whether, under the circumstances of the case the defendant acted as a reasonable person would have acted to prevent the injury.” This factious person is considered to be: “good citizen, invariably looks where he is going, and is careful to examine.” This person “never swears, gambles, or loses his temper;
When it comes to medical malpractice law, medical negligence is usually the legal concept upon which the case hinges, from a "legal fault" perspective. Negligence on its own does not merit a medical malpractice claim, but when the negligence is the cause of injury to a patient, there may be a good case for medical malpractice.
Clinical negligence is a civil case wherein an individual may claim compensation for the suffered damages or death of the patient, that results from medical malpractice by the liable health care provider.
As I mentioned above there are 3 elements of civil wrong, the first element is wrong (civil wrong), a civil wrong occurs when a person’s action, or a failure to take action, causes an injury to another person. The name for this type of wrong is a “tort.” The law calls a failure to take action an “omission.” A tort may be intentional or accidental. In either case, liability for a civil wrong results from one person’s unreasonable interference with the interests of another person
The plaintiff’s attorney must show that there was a breach of duty causing a lack of medical care that another healthcare professional would have used.
Liability for negligence is a civil matter. In liability negligence, the victim has to be able to prove that the defendant has legal obligations, and the obligations was breached, and that they have received foreseeable harm as a consequence of the negligence alleged. If the victim can prove that there was a breach of a legal obligation then he/she will be awarded damages based on the basis of the harm caused or loss sustained.
The first bases tort law on moralresponsibility or corrective justice. It attempts to hold defendants liable for harms they wrongfully caused and no others.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
Negligence is a concept that was passed from Great Britain to the United States. It arose out of common law, which is made up of court decisions that considered whether a defendant had an obligation to act with greater care. It is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm and involves a failure to fulfill a duty that causes injury to another. Many torts depend on whether there was intent but negligence does not. Negligence looks to see whether the person had a duty to act with care. It emphasizes the need for people to act reasonably in society. This is important because accidents will happen. Negligence helps the law establish whether these accidents could have been avoided, if there was a breach of duty to act reasonably, and if that breach was the cause of injury to that person. By focusing on the conduct rather than the intent of the defendant, the tort of negligence reflects society’s desire to
In our given scenario we are asked to discuss legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in the grounds of negligence. Steve’s negligent driving caused a series of events that caused losses to the other people presented in the scenario and they take actions against Steve in the grounds of negligence. At first we must understand what negligence is. The tort of negligence provides the potenti...