The Concept of "The Reasonable Man" as it applies in Negligence actions.
First of all to understand fully the concept of the reasonable man as it applies in Negligence actions an individual needs to understand the concept of law. Law in general can be described as a body of rules imposed by the State and its members. The Law sets a minimum standard of behaviour to maintain for the common good. The Law of Torts has been developed over time and serves a number of purposes, which is mainly influenced by a number of different sets of values. In the tort of Negligence, it can be described as a civil wrong. Negligence is also described as falling under certain standards and as a result of this, breaching a standard of care owed, of the "Reasonable
…show more content…
An injury must be a consequence in which a reasonable careful man would see as a possible outcome of the defendant’s actions. A key case for this is Wagon Mound. In this case it was a civil dispute, damage was caused and a there was a breach of a certain amount of duty of care owed. It was found that the owners were not liable and there was a cut off point to the liability and they were only liable in the end for the damage that was foreseeable. This case introduces a new principle, the idea of reasonable foresee ability and it’s very important as one of the essentials of a Negligence case.
A breach of duty looks at the legal question the content of the duty and the factual question the existence of the duty of care.
When the extent of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is looked at and determined the events following up to the incident of the injury is then examined to find out if the defendant discharged the duty. Even in similar situations where a breach of the duty of care has been distinguished, liability is not always necessarily attached to the plaintiff. Failure alone of the standard of care doesn't give rise to a cause of action for
...ulations in the U.S. judicial system is “most define the law as a system of principles and processes by which people in a society deal with disputes and problems, seeking to solve or settle them without resorting to force” (p. 15). Some situations cannot be rectified in a board meeting. However, negligence is in the category of objectives of tort law, it is also the most popular lawsuit pursued by patients against medical professionals against doctors and healthcare organizations (Bal, 2009). Objectives of Tort Law
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.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to compensate victims for any negligence.
Negligence is made up of four basic elements. The first element, duty, includes a related concept of "standard of care". Does that standard of care change depending on the defendant involved, and if so, how?
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.
When it comes to medical malpractice law, medical negligence is usually the legal concept upon which the case hinges, from a "legal fault" perspective. Negligence on its own does not merit a medical malpractice claim, but when the negligence is the cause of injury to a patient, there may be a good case for medical malpractice.
Clinical negligence is a civil case wherein an individual may claim compensation for the suffered damages or death of the patient, that results from medical malpractice by the liable health care provider.
The plaintiff’s attorney must show that there was a breach of duty causing a lack of medical care that another healthcare professional would have used.
Liability for negligence is a civil matter. In liability negligence, the victim has to be able to prove that the defendant has legal obligations, and the obligations was breached, and that they have received foreseeable harm as a consequence of the negligence alleged. If the victim can prove that there was a breach of a legal obligation then he/she will be awarded damages based on the basis of the harm caused or loss sustained.
As I mentioned above there are 3 elements of civil wrong, the first element is wrong (civil wrong), a civil wrong occurs when a person’s action, or a failure to take action, causes an injury to another person. The name for this type of wrong is a “tort.” The law calls a failure to take action an “omission.” A tort may be intentional or accidental. In either case, liability for a civil wrong results from one person’s unreasonable interference with the interests of another person
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 plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to act reasonably, that the defendant failed to fulfill that obligation, that the breach of duty caused the plaintiffs injuries, and that the plaintiff suffered some sort of injury. In order to prove that the defendant was negligent and therefore liable for their injuries, the plaintiff must prove all of the elements which are duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages. For instance, one of the elements is damages, meaning the plaintiff must have suffered damages (injuries, loss, etc.) in order for the defendant to be held liable. So even if you can prove that the defendant indeed acted negligently, you may not collect damages if you didn't suffer any injuries. The law will not hold a defendant liable for every injury to the plaintiff but only for those injuries that are proven and directly related to a breach of a
Negligence is the breach of the duty of care: When you want to establish negligence, you have to prove that there was a breach of the duty of care. For example, if you are a patient in a hospital and undergo surgery. If the surgeon leaves forceps or a piece of gauze in your abdomen, then they have been negligent. All hospitals have protocols to prevent instruments from being left behind in patients. If the surgeon still closes the abdomen knowing that the final count of instruments is not correct, then they can be deemed to have been negligent.
A person may be liable for negligence in a personal injury case if his breach of duty caused another person's injuries. The first case we could look at to establish a breach of duty to care, which is the standard that needs to be applied which is Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks, and this is a reasonable man test. It is an objective test.