Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Negligence tort
The law The tort involved in this case is that of negligence, which is defined as the breach of an individual’s duty to take reasonable care in situations where damage has occurred to another person or organisation (Legal Services Commission, 2013). The main purposes of laws against negligent behaviour is to provide compensation for victims whom have suffered or made at loss at the hands of a negligent party or to deter members of the community from participating in negligent behaviour (US Legal, 2016). To successfully prove that an act of negligence has occurred, three elements need to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt (Tomson Reuters, 2016). The first of these elements is that a duty of care was owed to the person. To prove this …show more content…
He would receive payout for his damages. There are various types of payouts ranging from future medical services to loss of life enjoyment (Tomson Reuters, 2016). The payouts that are most likely to be suited to this case are for future economic loss, as he has lost his career and an NRL star, and for medical expenses and any adaptations that may be needed in his house. Payouts for general damages, specific damages and future economic loss. General damages are measured on a numerical scale from 1 to 100 and the payout is determined from this. Specific damages include the cost of adaptations to a person’s house and other living necessities that are impacted by their injury. Future economic loss is if they are unable to return to work or their playing career in Alex’s case. The worst case scenario would be if the defendant successfully defended the case and found that the NRL were not liable for the injury and its losses. 5. Consider all Stakeholders · Alex MacKinnon · Family
“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 question today is whether Alex McKinnon should sue the National Rugby League for the injuries he sustained in a game last year. Well today learned colleagues, I will argue that he should not sue the NRL on the basis of negligence. First and foremost, on behalf of the National Rugby League and myself, we would like to extend our condolences for such a horrendous situation and we wish him all the best.
The first component of the four D’s of negligence is duty. The dentist owed a duty of care to every one of his patients. Duty of care is a legal obligation a health care worker, in this case, the dentist, owes to their patient and, at times,...
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
The amount can be anything up to £2,000. You have full control over the way the money is spent, you may wish to clear some debts or alternatively you may need it to cover unexpected medical expenses incurred as a result of your injury. You can also control when the sum is paid, if you wish to save it until after the case is closed that option is available to you, you could also chose to receive the sum in instalments or to receive one lump sum at the beginning of the proceedings.
General speaking, a tort of negligence is a failure of someone or one party to follow a standard of care which means failed to do what a reasonable person do or do what a reasonable personal would not do. From the interest perspective, the tort of negligent investigation is an offence against private interest of an individual, corporation or government due to the negligent investigation. Whether a tort of negligent investigation exists in Canada is related to whether investigators owe a duty of care to person being investigated and what is the standard of care. Finally, a tort of negligent investigation only exist when there is a loss or injury to the suspect and the loss or injury was caused by the negligent investigation.
To succeed in a negligence action, you must prove each of the following. The first element, did George owe the plaintiff a legal duty of care? Legal duty of care paradigm includes that a person acts towards others with attention, prudence, and caution. George owed a duty of care to people by leaving his car in park.
American football or rugby is a sport where injuries are considered to be common. It is not written in your article but I am assuming that in rugby, if a player does not have a minor injury then it is considered that he hasn’t given his best in the game. But the injuries sometimes get too major such as that of Tony Dorsett. He got struck on his neck by a helmet which barreled into him like a Ferrari at 220kmph. Players like Tony Dorsett are injured almost everyday in rugby. These injuries are sometimes long lasting and a perfect example can be of Mr. Dorsett’s CTE. “CTE is caused by the regular thwack-thwack of the player’s head on his helmet.” It obviously must have hurt him a lot and also maybe destroyed his promising and bright career in this game.
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.
total compensation payments for back injury and it is estimated that greater than 764,000 lost
The Act allows negligence as the sole ground unlike common law which required the claimant to establish ‘fraud’ even if negligence existed. It is believed that the ‘d...
Tort is the action that causes injury to persons or property (Epstein, 2011). There are three types of Tort, intentional, negligence, and strict liability. Intentional is the act of consciously committing harm to an individual (U.S. Legal, Inc., 2014). Strict liability is the result of unintentional consequences of harm or damage to persons or property not associated with the act that has caused the damage as a result of the primary action (U.S. Legal, Inc., 2014). Negligence is the harm or damage to persons or property due to the deficiency in taking precautionary measures to prevent such injuries (U.S. Legal, Inc., 2014). In sports or athletic events, the coach’s and the organization who is conducting the event is responsible for the safety of the athletes and spectators (U.S. Legal, Inc., 2014). Negligence in sports can occur when the coach or organization unintentionally overlooks the overall safety of those participating and an accident or injury occurs as a result of this oversight. Furthermore, there was no premeditated or conscious effort in creating a dangerous environment. Hence, the type of Tort that would be applied in this situation is negligence on behalf of those in
Damages – if the other party cause’s drastic damages that cost the other party or affect it negatively than the other party can sue and take them to court of law, and the court may claim that the affected party may be paid and be taken back to its original position as it was
In essence, the concept of product liability is an expansive area of study in understanding the legal application in sporting products. The product liability concept is applicable under tort law and provides legal redress for a party who has been hurt by sports product. The tort law interprets whether the injuries caused by the product were due to the products defects during the design, manufacture, or distribution. Evidently, playing sports exposes the players and the supporters to unforeseeable risks that may cause injuries or threats to life. Notably, there are sports that have minimal risks of contact like athletics.
In Billy’s case Billy got five million dollars compensation because of the incident, on the other hand Ted had a same incident but he did not get any compensation because he had normal injuries, this incident developed very negative attitude in ted against Billy and their Company.