The law of tort covers many areas in business which includes liability to other parties other than the main occupants of a business premises as an example or those injured by a business’ employees in the course of work. In order to get compensation the claims can have different perspectives and can also be argued in different ways. As a tort, the injury in the Alice versus University Heights Pizza and Donald is based on intrusion on health and safety (injury) caused by reckless driving.
• What is University Height's best argument that it is not liable to Alice? Would you agree with this argument? Explain. University Heights Pizza might argue that Donald had gone to an extra mile which was out of the call of duty when Alice was injured.
…show more content…
The point in this case is ‘were it not for’ the defendant’s reckless driving and knowingly subverting his duty, the accident could not have happened.
Duty: To prove that Donald owed Alice a duty of care is required in this scenario. In this case, the judge will rule on whether Donald owed Alice a duty of care. Considering that driving is done in public places where there are other road users, it proves that in fact Donald owed Alice a duty of care. If he was driving in a controlled area such as rally driving tracks where the public is limited to enter, then Donald could not owe Alice any duty of care. The critical point is the location of the accident at the time it occurred.
Breach of duty: As a driver, Donald owes other road users a duty of care which he intentionally failed to exercise but chose to drive recklessly. In this case, the ‘right of way’ by the other driver is critical in proving that Donald ignored the duty to others.
Damages: As mentioned above, the main point in claiming damages is showing the injury caused to Alice. The point is also related to care where Donald failed to exercise reasonable care which resulted in actual injury to
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Without clarifying the instruction, it was suggested that if the behavior is not what a reasonable person would consider to be a “normal consequence” of the situation created by defendant's conduct, then said intervening act is a superseding cause. Consequently, it does not convey the relevant standard—whether the probability of harm is “sufficiently serious that a reasonable and prudent person would take precautions to avoid it.” (Iturralde, 2013)
However, it does not fully disclose the conditions to satisfy this offence. In Wayne v R, the trial judge misled the jury by employing the word ‘might’ instead of ‘probably’, resulting in an appeal allowed22. The lack of a unified distinction between probability and possibility when defining recklessness allows errors like this to misguide the jury’s decision.
The refinement of this definition has significant legal implications, as it broadens the scope of those who can sue within blameless accidents. Prior to this, such victims would also face being labelled with “fault”. Supporting the findings of Axiak, by establishing non-tortious conduct as separate from “fault”, similar, future cases are more likely to proceed despite the plaintiff’s contributory
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).
In response to many theories of liability to tort, it is important to understand two major defences to negligence, contributory negligence and assumption of risk, when handling cases. This is beneficial for defendant to reduce liability when the plaintiff has succeeded to establish the three elements of negligence. In relation to hospitality industry, defences to negligence were frequently used to protect and reduce liability of the hospitality establishment. Even till today, although defences are developing and ever changing, the underlying principles however are substantially the same.
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...
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)
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.
Ever been to a drunk driving trial? On Wednesday the 5th of October, I would experience a very touching event. This event was called the Mock Crash Trial put on by the sorority Pi Beta Phi. They held this in the auditorium of the Student Union. The event was attended by many students involved in a variety of greek organizations as well as any other student that attends The University Of Toledo.
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...
When a business fails to address its employees actions and as a result, any injury/damage occurs to another holds the business liable without having any explicit involvement. The “Rose v Plenty” case previously held Mr Plenty guilty of negligence of duty of care and caused Rose’s injury. But when appealed, the court also held the employer, the “Co-operative Retail Services Ltd’ as responsible for not acting under vicarious liability as per the company’s scope of employment that Mr Plenty enjoyed. Similarly, in “Mattis v Pollock’ case, Mr Pollock employed Cranston as bouncer who was intimidating to Pollock’s customers and was motivated to act violently.
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 ...
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.
bilabial- A bilabial is a consonant in which the manner in which air has been confined by our lips. Bilabials can be seen in two different ways on having the vocal cords vibrating through articulation of a consonant. The second process is having the no vibration throughout the articulation of a consonant. labiodental- Is the process where the lower lip touches the top front part of the mouth or teeth in order to produce a sound such as the letter f and v. interdental- means in the middle of the teeth.