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. First and foremost, the warden should have been responsible for looking out for the possibility that there would have been people around, between the correctional centre and the medical centre in the city of …show more content…
The defendants could argue that Helen Happy’s suffered harm was incalculable, and that the physical and psychological harm she endured was a random case, and wouldn’t have happened to most people. However, the Thin Skull Rule says differently. The Thin Skull Rule was instituted after there was a man that had a piece of metal debris hit his head, and instead of having a large bruise, his skull caved in. In this man’s case, the judge ruled for him, and said that “you do not get to choose your victim”. Therefore, just because it happened to someone more susceptible -Helen Happy-it does not excuse the harm she suffered and the harm the defendants caused, even if it was a special
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
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.
On Thursday, 11/12/2015, at 17:01 hours, I, Deputy Stacy Stark #1815 was dispatched to a domestic disturbance in progress located at 66 Paper Lane, Murphysboro, IL 62966. It was reported that a 15 year old female juvenile was busting out windows on her mother’s vehicle. Deputy Sergeant Ken Lindsey #2406 and Deputy John Huffman #2903 responded as well.
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
Proximate Cause: The shoulder and rotator cuff injuries were within the scope of the risks that made us determine that the dropping of Vicky’s body was a breach. Because Dwayne dropped Vicky, Dwayne’s dropping of Vicky’s body proximately caused the injuries sustained. Felix’s carrying of the body was a cause in fact but not the proximate cause of the injuries Vicky
In conclusion, McIntyre vs. Balentine was a landmark case in the United States regarding contributory negligence in a lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed following an accident in which the plaintiff and defendant were involved though they disputed each other’s claims on the chronology of events preceding the incident. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that they were equally at fault despite the fact that the plaintiff suffered severe injuries. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling since comparative negligence is not law in the state and affirming the admissibility of criminal presumption of intoxication as evidence in a civil case.
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.
Clearly outline the elements of gross negligence manslaughter. Use relevant case law to illustrate your points. (30%)
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
Tom defamed Allen through intentional publication. Under section 41-1-6-9 of the state statutes defines defamation as the intentional publication of a false statement about a person. The statue also defines publication as communication to a third person and includes publication that occurs as a result of gross negligence as intentional publication. The mere fact that Tom leaves the defaming letter with Allen’s friend is gross negligence. Add to Tom’s gross negligence is the fact that the letter was folded and seal with a piece of tape. Tom did not instructed the friend on the importance of not opening the letter. Tom’s letter was is personal believes. Writing a letter that accuses your business associate of stealing should have never been giving
...rameters and all the aspects of the law that appear in our given scenario we can safely say that any claim that is being made by Tom’s representative by Daria and Samira on the grounds of negligence – breach of duty of care and psychiatric injury would be successful and that even though Harry suffered psychiatric injury his claim won’t be successful since he doesn’t fulfill the necessary parameters in order to make a successful claim.
Facts • Plaintiff (Escola) was working as a waitress in a restaurant when the Defendant's delivery driver delivered several cases of Coca Cola to the restaurant. While unloading the bottles, one exploded in the Plaintiff's hand causing injury. Procedure History • The case was initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff following the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (negligence), “a doctrine or rule of evidence in tort law that permits an inference or presumption that a defendant was negligent in an accident injuring the plaintiff on the basis of circumstantial evidence if the accident was of a kind that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence” (Merriam-Webster). Even after the majority opinion and Chief Judge, Phil Gibson, affirmed
Negligence is a concept that was passed from Great Britain to the United States. It arose out of common law, which is made up of court decisions that considered whether a defendant had an obligation to act with greater care. It is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm and involves a failure to fulfill a duty that causes injury to another. Many torts depend on whether there was intent but negligence does not. Negligence looks to see whether the person had a duty to act with care. It emphasizes the need for people to act reasonably in society. This is important because accidents will happen. Negligence helps the law establish whether these accidents could have been avoided, if there was a breach of duty to act reasonably, and if that breach was the cause of injury to that person. By focusing on the conduct rather than the intent of the defendant, the tort of negligence reflects society’s desire to
Negligence refers to a conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others (Rest 2d Torts, &282). The law states that everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his/her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his/her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his/her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought that injury upon himself/herself (1714, subdivision (a)). In determining the negligence, we must determine the existence of a duty of care which is the threshold element of a cause of action. It refers to what two or more parties agreed on, failure to which can be termed as negligent act.
Simple negligence occurs while a correctional professional performs his/her duties, and the officer unintentionally creates a condition that could result in an injury or damage but does not take the proper action to prevent the injury or damage. If a person is found guilty of simple negligence a monetary award is awarded to the offender. Some examples of incidents that could result in compensation are damaging to offender property while conducting cell searches or the loss of an offender’s property. Another example, an offender is on a fifteen-minute watch, and in his written note he is not to receive any plastic utensils to eat his meals due to self-mutilation tendencies. While the officer is passing out the morning meals a utensil falls on the floor and the offender takes it and starts to cut at his wrists.