The role of liability insurance is to assume the financial consequences arising out of a policyholder’s obligation to pay compensation for harm suffered by third parties. Liability insurance provides liable parties with financial protection against consequences of harm that they cause to others and in that regard liability insurance protects wrongdoers. Victims of wrongful acts are also assured of compensation in the presence of liability insurance and they do not have to face the prospect of suing someone who is financially incapable of paying for the harm caused. Liability insurance also promotes entrepreneurial activities in that people with business ideas are not afraid to implement them because they can transfer the risk of harm to third …show more content…
Brown was an employee to company X which was vicariously liable to damages incurred to its employee during their course of legitimate works. The employee during his works was negligently exposed to asbestos fibres which took a long time to manifest (long tail 1985-2007) and eventually diagnosed as mesothelioma in 2007, leading to his eventual death. Without an act/omission there can be no liability as in the case between Cape Town Municipality v Paine 1923 AD 207 court defined the act for purposes of liability in delict. The consequences of the negligent act of Company X led to Mr. Brown being exposed to the dreadful asbestos fibres .Thus an act which in abstract looks harmless can create liability if it produces undesirable consequences i.e. in this case death due to the …show more content…
Mr Brown developed symptoms of Mesothelioma in about 2007 and during this period the public liability policy for Company X was underwritten by Intercontinental from 2005 to 2010.In the given case the loss occurring date fell within the period Intercontinental was on cover and hence based on this the claim falls within the period of insurance and geographical limits as there is no mention of the event happening in a foreign
Vicarious liability is a common law concept that refers to the liability that arises when one party, such as an employer, is legally liable for the acts or omissions of another party, such as an employee. This is because employers have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of their employees and those of others who come into contact with them and their business. Does vicarious liability expose businesses to too much liability? In the case study 4.1 (Tardif v. Wiebe), we learned that vicarious liability does not always applied on employers for employee’s wrongdoings.
In conclusion, Fletcher’s paradigm provides another way to look at liability. In this paradigm, he is more concerned with the case itself than if it brings social utility. Fletcher also looks at the actions and risks that both parties pose on one another and uses this to determine liability.
Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity is one of the best representatives of the film noir era in Hollywood as it contains all the main characteristics of the genre. The general darkness present throughout the movie is embodied in the plot which reveals the moral bankruptcy of the main characters. It is also present in the mise-en-scene choices such as the dark costumes and modest lighting with the great emphasis on shadows. The main character’s voice-over, another important film noir characteristic, brings this darkness to life and communicates it to the audience with brutal honesty. One of the scenes of the film which contains all of these features is the one where the two main characters, Neff and Phyllis, meet for the first time. This scene will be analysed with respect to the main film noir elements and techniques that were used in the making of it – mainly mise en scene, the voice-over and the screenplay.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
The Insured was found to be a 56-year old Hispanic male, 5’09” in height, weighing 185 pounds, with brown eyes, black hair and wearing a goatee. He wore a white long-sleeved shirt, khaki pants, black leather opened toe men’s sandals and a tan cap. The Insured wore prescription eyeglasses for reading and stated he was right hand dominant. His complexion was pale and his muscle tone appeared to be below that which would be considered average.
Tort, one of the crucial subjects of study when analyzing common law jurisdictions. Tort, is an action which causes another person or party to suffer harm or loss []. The person who has committed a tortious act is called the tortfeasor while the person who suffered harm or loss from such act is called the injured party or the victim. Although crimes may be torts, torts may not be crimes [] simply because a tort may not have broken a law. In fact, one must understand that the key idea of tort is not to punish the tortfeasor(s) but rather to compensate the victim(s).
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.
The hospital under vicarious liability is based on Respondeat Superior (let the master answer) for the negligence actions of its contractors/employees. This is the responsibility of physicians for negligent actions of hospital employees ranging from nurses to x-ray techs. Through Corporate Liability the hospital itself is liable for the negligent actions of its workers.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
When you or your loved one walks into a business or is invited onto private property , you expect to be walking into a safe environment. Business are responsible for taking certain measures to ensure the safety of you and your loved one. If you become injured because of a property owner 's failure to keep their property free from hazards, hidden or known, you may have a legal claim against the property owner. This is a premise liability case. Below are some frequently asked questions and answers regarding premise liability claims.
In order to critically assess the approach of the courts in allowing damages for pure economic loss in cases of negligence. One must first outline what pure economic loss is and what it consists off. Pure economic loss can be defined as financial loss or damage to one party caused by another party due to their negligence however the negligent act that is carried out is ‘purely’ economic and has no relation to any physical damage caused to any person or property. Numerous cases illustrate pure economic loss and losses that are deemed to be ‘purely economic’ are demonstrated under the Accidents Act 1976.
Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to identify the purpose of the law of torts. However, the range of interests protected by the law of torts makes any search for a single aim underlying the law a difficult one. For example, actions for wrongful interference with goods or trespasses to land serve fundamentally different ends from an action seeking compensation for a personal injury. Nevertheless, following the research I have carried out the fundamental purpose of the law of torts is to achieve compensation and appeasement and to obtain deterrence and justice, in order to determine the conditions under which certain losses may be shifted to persons who created the risks which in some way led to the losses. In doing so, the law of torts attempts to balance the utility of a particular type of conduct against the harm it may cause. During the course of this essay I will discuss each function separately and I will investigate how each function achieves its individual resolution of a tort.
Section 7 of the CECO stipulates that the liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence could not be excluded or restricted. For ‘other loss or damage’, the liability can be excluded only if the exclusion clause satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. And this section should remain unchanged.
The Nature of Insurance came about to offset any loss that an individual or those engaged in business may suffer through the occurrence of some unforeseen event. To offset this loss the commercial world developed the contract of insurance. In return for a fee the individual, or the business enterprise, would be indemnified for the loss suffered on the occurrence of the event insured against. Contracts of insurance cover a wide field such as life assurance, personal accident public liability, damage to property and general liability insurance.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.