Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The Principle Of Negligence
The Principle Of Negligence
Introduction to negligence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The Principle Of Negligence
Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
After delivering several boxes by coca cola to a restaurant and stacking them behind a counter where they stayed for 36 hours before handling. Gladys Escola, a waitress in that restaurant. Started taking out bottles of Coca-Cola from the beverage boxes and putting it in the refrigerator when one of the bottles exploded in her hand and caused a severe cut by broken glass. She brought action against coca cola bottling company claiming that the bottle was defective. Relying completely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “the thing speaks for itself”. The driver who delivered the bottles had admitted that he saw many bottles explode in the past.
Legal issue: Is the defendant totally liable for its failure to examine a bottle of Coca-Cola that has a defect that caused injury to Plaintiff? Does the doctrine of res ispa loquitur apply as an implication of negligence from the defendant for the defective bottle that was delivered?
…show more content…
The Plaintiff then rested her case, having announced to the court that being unable to show any specific acts of negligence she depended completely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur applies only in 2 cases. When the defendant has control of the thing that caused the injury and there was no interference by the plaintiff that lead to the accident. Another case is if this accident wouldn’t occur in the absence of negligence by the defendant. In this case, the bottle was over charged with gas under pressure when the bottle was within the exclusive control of the defendant and this wouldn’t incur without negligence or if duty of care had been
The sisters, Linda Hagan and Barbara Parker, were both agreed that the taste of the Coke that they drank from a bottle is flat. As Hagan held the bottle up to the light, she and Parker thought that a used condom with “oozy stringy stuff coming out on top” was inside the bottle. In return, both women were distressed because they had consumed some foreign material, and Hagan immediately became nauseated. The next day, the two concerned women went to the health care facility; there were given shots and tested for HIV as per advised by the medical personnel of the facility. However, the results of the HIV test at that time they went to the facility and after six months were both negative. The sisters filed
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
“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
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
We learned from Lau and Johnson (2014) text “strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness (p. 152).” Upon viewing Susan Saladoff’s movie documentary the Hot Coffee Movie Trailer link, I was intrigued to learn more about the case. I, too, was an individual who did not have all of the facts about the case. Let’s explore four questions for this week’s discussion which is all about the tort reform.
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 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
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.
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...
The Donoghue V. Stevenson Case 1932 was about the violation of a consumer’s right to safe consumption of a product. Mrs. Donoghue the plaintiff was bought for a drink (Ginger Beer) by a friend in a cafe store. In the process of consuming the drink, a decomposing snail was discovered after it floated from the opaque bottle. The plaintiff had already consumed the drink and was in shock to discover the snail. Mrs. Donoghue was later diagnosed with shock and gastroenteritis. She later sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, seeking fiscal compensation for the damages (Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932]).
The Porter’s model of competitive advantage of nations is based on four key elements including factor endowments, demand conditions, related and supporting industries and firm strategy, structure and rivalry. This makes it suitable in understanding the competition existing in the soft drinks industry in the Asian markets. The factor conditions identify the natural resources, climate, location, and demographics. Coca cola and Pepsi enjoy the growing population in the Asian markets (Yoffie, 2002). A higher population guarantees the two companies adequate revenues. Other factors include communication infrastructure and availability of skilled workers. Most of the Asian countries are embracing new technologies that grow much knowledge of the diverse beverage drinks. Secondly, the demand conditions play a significant role in enhancing competitiveness for the firms. Both Coca cola and Pepsi are an
The establishment of the Subjective definition of recklessness was through the case of Cunningham. In R v Cunningham D broke a gas metre to steal money contained within the metre, leading to a gas leak which caused D’s mother in law to become seriously ill. The subjective definition was developed here as D had been reckless as he had realised there was a risk of gas escaping and endangering someone, and went ahead with his action anyway. Therefore, demonstrating the subjective definition that a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness they must ...
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.
There are a variety of beverages available to us today with a wide range of differences, some are flavored, carbonated, low calorie, energy boosters, and just plain water. When it comes down to carbonated drinks there are two major rivalry soda companies dominating the market. Coca Cola and Pepsi are two well know cola distributors with very credible history, but the question still remains one is America’s favorite? With the ongoing competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, each company is incorporating new strategies for marketing and advertising there brands. When comparing an advertisement from each of the companies, we will review how they appeal to consumers.
CASE 1-3: Coke and Pepsi Learn To Compete in India The political environment in India proved critical in that their government was unfavorable to foreign investors. They prohibited the import of soft drinks since they felt it could be gotten anywhere. They also prohibited the foreign brand name and wanted the name Lehar Pepsi and Coca-Cola India, an indigenous name. These effects couldn’t have be anticipated prior to entering the market because the trade policies, rules and regulations of India were difficult and unpredictable.