Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cases about negligence
Cases about negligence
Cases about negligence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cases about negligence
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). Donoghue was bought a ginger beer by her friend from an ice-cream parlour. She discovered a partially decomposed snail inside the opaque bottle. She claimed that she suffered from gastro-enteritis and nervous shock as a result, and sued the manufacturer. She could not sue for breach of contract (the contract being that the manufacturer would provide the consumer with products that would not harm her) because her friend had purchased it for her, so she sued for negligence. Lord Atkinson, who was the judge at the trial, said the case hinged on the question, do the manufacturers owe the consumer, as well as the buyer (the parlour), a duty of care? Is the plaintiff the defendant's 'neighbour', to whom the plaintiff owed a duty of care? Lord Atkinson said that a neighbour is anyone that you might closely and directly affect by your actions. So it was established that the manufacturer did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to... ... middle of paper ... ...nted to sack an employee but had no good reason, then they could stage an 'accident' which pointed to the negligence of the employee, giving them an excuse to fire them and avoid an unfair dismissal action. The action would obviously be dropped once the offending employee was removed. Secondly, although the employee is supposedly an extension of the employer, can the employer really be held responsible for the actions of another person with free will? What if the employee started well in his/her duties, but quickly became lax in performing their job, and then committing a tort. Admittedly, they should really have been supervised better, but if the transformation was rapid (perhaps due to a death in the employee's family) then there really wasn't much that the employer could have done to make sure that it didn't happen.
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
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.
had spent part of the summer with their grandmother Pontellier in Iberville. Feeling secure regarding their happiness and welfare, she did not miss them except with an occasional intense longing. Their absence was a sort of relief, though she did not admit this, even to herself. It seemed to free her of a responsibility which she had blindly assumed and for which Fate had not fitted her. (p. 40)
A) Kidkare owes a duty of care to Owen because as a business, which deals with children, it is their responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the children under their care. James also owes Owen a duty of care. As a care provider James is accountable for any children in his group. James should have taken better care to ensure that Owen was in fact joining his older brother’s group, or at the very least, calmed Owen down and have him remain in his own age group.
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.
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
Ma’s primary responsibility is to take care of her family and to provide them food, upraise, support, and love.
Accordingly Christopher should not be residing with Judy but instead Ed. There are many reasons that Judy does not make for a fitting guardian, hence Christopher should not be dwelling with Judy and instead Ed. Judy’s personality makes her impotent to be patient or well tempered with Christopher, as well as she always chooses to run away from her problems. While, Ed is dependable, considerate and tolerant with Christopher. For these reasons Judy is an unsuitable guardian and should not be trusted to care for Christopher in the proper manner but instead Ed should be given this duty.
Explore the ways in which JB. Priestly Presents the Theme of responsibility in ‘An inspector Calls’.
A tort is a wrong. More precisely, a tort is a violation of a duty imposed by the civil law. When a person breaks one of those duties and injures another, it is a tort. The injury could be to a person or her property. In a tort case, it is up to the injured party to seek compensation. She must hire her own lawyer, who will file a lawsuit. Her lawyer must convince the court that the defendant breached some legal duty and ought to pay money damages to the plaintiff. A crime is an act so threatening that the government itself will prosecute whether the injured party wants the case to go forward. A district attorney, who is paid by the government, will bring the case to court seeking to send the defendant to prison. If there is a fine,
The ideas of “care” and “justice” are fundamental measures in our everyday lives. While both of these values for living are critical elements for leading a fulfilled life, they are not completely complimentary to each other. Micheal Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? Is a proponent of justice-based philosophy. On the other hand, Virginia Held’s The Ethics of Care is an advocate for care-based philosophy, which questions the priority that other philosophers have put on justice thus far in the discussion of ethics. Held asserts that, “the focus of the ethics of care is on the compelling moral salience of attending to and meeting the needs of the particular others for whom we take responsibility” (Held 10). Care Ethics are intended
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
When evaluating medical malpractice, this can be performed by any healthcare professional. It is easy to classify this to be misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, delayed treatment, even not taking the time to evaluate a patient properly. When practicing medicine it is important that all measures be taken when a patient is showing signs of infection or having any adverse reaction to medication. In the case study below this is a prime example of the importance of checking patient progression.
Miller SC. Filial obligation, Kant’s duty of beneficence, and need. In: Humber James M, Almeder Robert F., editors. Care of the aged. Totowa: Humana-Pr. Biomedical Ethics Reviews; 2003. pp. 169–198
The author defined "owe" as a form of obligation that is to be fulfilled unwillingly. In support of her argument she presented the case of friendship. When two people are friends they help each other, but they are not obliged to make their share of sacrifices. She stated that the term "owe" undermines the role of mutuality. "Owe" represents obligations that must be fulfilled irrespective of the person's emotions. Thus, the term "owe" should not be used to refer to a child's duties towards his/her parents.