Anjum’s solicitors
116 Manchester Road
Bury, Greater Manchester
M89GX
Mr Patrick Patterson
25 Oldham Road
Oldham
OL55BA
Dear Patrick Patterson,
I am writing to explain to you as to whether you were owed a duty of care from the defendant Tristam Turner.
The Caparo v Dickman test will indicate whether you are owed a duty of care. Firstly, your injury was foreseeable as the defendant’s negligence would have resulted in an accident making it foreseeable that the events can cause someone to be paralyzed which would rule them out of work. There was proximity at the time because you were at the scene of the negligence, there was also closeness in space as you were also close to the defendant at the scene of the negligence. To prove whether you were owed a duty of care it has to be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. The defendant was not part of the public service so the floodgate of litigation cannot be open. The defendant was just an ordinary person being negligent. Therefore, the 3 stages have been proven and so you are entitled to a duty of care.
Now that there was a duty of care owed we have to prove whether the defendant breached their duty. The defendant will be compared to a reasonable man who is expected to drive reasonable competently well. The defendant is expected to meet the same standard of care as a reasonable driver. A reasonable driver in the defendant’s positon would not have been driving over the speed limit in the area and also would not have been on their phone as some eye witnesses pointed out. Individual characteristics of the defendant don’t be considered. However, as the defendant was a learner who had just passed his test but it does not make a difference whether the defendant was a learner o...
... middle of paper ...
...d rather than spending the money all at once which would have been kept for a long period of time. There are 2 different damages general and special damages. I advise you to claim for the general damages as you are entitled to this because the injury you have is a lifetime injury which requires medical treatment. This is priceless as nobody knows the price of the cost for you to pay your expenses for the treatment. Now that you are unfortunately unable to walk you are restricted from many things including not being able to walk which you should be compensated for. Therefore, I believe that the pain and suffering and the loss off amenity categories is what you should claim for as the money will ensure you to provide for your family and for the pain and suffering which has been caused to be treated right with the medical treatment. #
Yours sincerely
Anjum’s Solicitors.
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
The respondent (driver) is required to take reasonable care when operating his vehicle to ensure the safety of the appellant. The primary judge highlighted that "content of this duty depends on the circumstances of the case". However, the respondent breached his duty of care by taking his eyes off the road, violating s 5B and s 5C of the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002. The respondent nevertheless is not considered negligent as outlined in s5B (1) if he could prevent the outcome of a risk that was not
Recommendations: It is recommended that our law office regretfully deny service to Ms. Carry based upon the precedent in Kentucky. Based upon the analysis the issue, it is apparent that Ms. Carry would not receive a promising conclusion to her situation. Due to the facts involved and the cases discussed (which are somewhat on point) Ms. Carry does not make a claim in which relief can be granted.
If you have injured due to the negligence of someone else, you are entitled to justice and maximum compensation for your personal injuries. An ICBC injury lawyer can help make that
The appellant, Jesse Mamo, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the respondent, Steven Surace. Whilst the respondent looked down to adjust the radio, a cow wandered on to the road, colliding with the vehicle . The appellant alleged that the respondent failed to use high beam or maintain a proper lookout. The respondent denied liability and pleaded contributory negligence. At trial, the Judge held that breach of duty of care had not transpired, as it was an unforeseeable risk causing an unavoidable accident, as the cow appeared too close to react. The Judge argued that the respondent acted appropriately toward ‘foreseeable risks”, which the cow was not part of.
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.
I am writing to inform you I intend to pursue legal action in the form of a medical malpractice/elder abuse lawsuit. The filing will be on behalf of my 73-year old wife and myself. The facts will clearly demonstrate you were guilty of gross medical negligence and elder abuse in your management of my wife’s health care. I have been advised to afford you the opportunity to settle this claim without protracted litigation.
Personal Injury claim cases are commonplace throughout the UK. Unfortunately, accidents resulting in personal injury occur frequently in a variety of environments. Whether an accident in an office, a road traffic accident, an agricultural accident, warehouse accident, or a victim of medical/surgical negligence if you can prove that your injury was clearly not your fault and a person in a position of responsibility acted negligently towards you then you can make a compensation claim.
At dusk, on the clear evening of Friday, October 5th, 2012, defendant Taylor Hamilton, age 16, was driving his mother’s Lincoln Town Car eastbound on Nash Street in Clearwater when he struck and injured 16-year-old plaintiff Alex Cooper. As Hamilton said in his trial, it was a driver’s worst nightmare. At about 6:45 pm, as Hamilton was approaching the crest of the
In the civil suit against Firefighter Johnson and the Portage Fire District, the prosecution was charged with providing evidence that negligence by both parties had contributed to the death of Ian Huffman and the attempted homicide of Olivia Duty. Prosecutors allege “Mr. Johnson was driving his personal vehicle as fast as 98 mph on State Rt. 19 on his way to the fire station in Oak Harbor just seconds before he crashed into the rear of Ms. Duty's car at Portage River South Road” (Feehan, 2012, para. 6). The posted speed limit on Portage River South Road was 55 mph at the time of the accident (Curt, 2012). The defense alleges that Firefighter Johnson was using his lights and sirens and that Ian Huffman was not wearing a seatbelt at the...
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of
We are here to listen and legally define your situation of concern, and advise you on your corresponding legal rights. If your case is valid for a clinical negligence claim, we will further assist you in every step of the way.
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...
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
The majority of driving offences are contained in the Road Traffic Act 1988. This essay will mostly examine causing death by unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured driving (s3ZB) and causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. (s2B) There is often a distinction between constructive and non constructive strict liability offences. These offences are considered to be constructive strict liability since the prosecution does not need prove there was any fault in relation to causing the death.