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: Chapter 5 the law of torts
- The parties involved are Jonathan and the Ambulance Service. The claimants involved are; Albert, George and Victor in question. Jonathan v Albert and George
The claimants are Albert and George, which will be suing Jonathan in the tort of negligence for personal injury/damages. A tort in law is a civil wrong which causes unfair harm. The requirements for tort of negligence was stated by Lord Wright in Lochgelly v McMullan . Negligence is considered as a breach of a legal duty to take care, with the result that the damage is caused to the claimant . Albert and George would need to prove that Jonathan owed them a duty of care which included their deceased friend Victor, and then breached that duty of care therefore causing damage to the
…show more content…
This test is significantly relevant as it applies to cases that involve personal injury and/or damage to property. To establish whether or not Jonathan owes a duty of care and on what basis, the courts need to apply three essential questions portrayed by the legal principle in the Caparo test. Firstly, whether or not the damage was reasonably foreseeable. Secondly, whether there was a relationship of proximity between Jonathan and the claimants. Lastly, was it fair, just and reasonable to impose a …show more content…
The authority of Kent v Griffiths which concerned the London Ambulance Service’s had failed to promptly respond to a call which resulted in the patient suffering. It was argued by the ambulance services that they owed no duty of care on the authority of Capital and Counties . However, it was held that the nature of the ambulance service differed in comparison to police/fire brigade services, therefore NHS hospitals had a clear duty of care towards individual patients equally. In accordance to this case, a duty of care was owed to all casualties including Victor based on the nature of their
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 .
The case of Kamloops v. Nielson was a landmark decision for tort law, since it established the duty of care principle in Canadian private law, which prior to this case was used in the Anns v. Merton case and expanded the scope of duty first identified in Donoghue v. Stevenson. In the historic case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, duty of care was established to include anyone that could be foreseeably harmed by someone’s actions, creating the neighbour principle. The Anns v. Merton case expanded the scope of the neighbour principle to including public bodies, such as the municipality. The case involved a faulty building foundation, which resulting in requiring repairs for the house, and whether the municipality should have to pay for the repairs, since it was the job of the municipality to inspect and ensure the building was properly constructed. Whether public tax allocations should be subject to tort litigations was placed in question in the case but the municipality was held liable for damages nevertheless.
In the case of Norton vs Argonaut Insurance Company there are many factors which impacted the court’s ruling as to the parties who were responsible resultant wrongful death of the infant Robyn Bernice Norton. The nurses, doctors(independent contractors) and the the hospital though not formally charged
On the morning of May 17th, 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two-car collision. Police and Ambulance were dispatched and arrive on scene at the intersection of Kenny and Fernley Street. Ambulance conducted various assessments on Ms. Walker which revealed no major injuries and normal vital signs. Mrs walker denied further medical investigation and denied hospital treatment. Later on, Queensland police conducted a roadside breath test that returned a positive reading, police then escorted Ms. Walker to the cairns police station. Ms. Walker was found to be unconscious, without a pulse and not breathing. An ambulance was called but attempts to revive her failed (Coroner’s Inquest, Walker 2007). The standard of Legal and ethical obligation appeared by paramedics required for this situation are flawed and require further examination to conclude whether commitments of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice were accomplished.
McOskar Enterprises, Inc. owns and manages a health and fitness center identified as “Curves for Women”. Tammey J. Anderson, the complainant, joined Curves on April 2, 2003. As part of the joining process Anderson signed a release of liability agreement. This agreement released Curves from any liabilities related to injuries that might be sustained by contributing in any activities or through the use of equipment. The agreement also stated that participants agreed to all risks of death or injury that could occur, Anderson read and signed the agreement of terms with Curves. After completing the liability agreement, Anderson began working out under the observation of a Curves’ trainer using the machines within the facility. During the workout Anderson notified the trainer that she began to feel pain in her neck, shoulder and arm, but finished her workout. She continued to feel the pain when she got home and pursued medical attention. As part of her prescribed medical treatment she was sent for a course a physical therapy. In June 2003 Anderson underwent a cervical discectomy, a procedure used to treat nerve or spinal cord compression. After her procedure Anderson sued Curves, claiming negligent acts during her workout. Anderson v. McOskar Enterprises, Inc., 712 NW 2d 796 (Minn. 2006).
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).
The second issue is whether or not the defendant has an obligation to reimburse for an injury. The outcome of this second issue depends whether or not it is rational for the defendant to have to pa...
1. What is the definition of an "ex post facto" law and why are they unfair? Ex post facto is a law that retroactively changes the lawful results of activities that were conferred, or connections that existed, before the authorization of the law. It is out of line since it might criminalize activities that were lawful when perpetrated; it might exasperate a wrongdoing by bringing it into a more extreme class than it was in when it was carried out; it might change the discipline recommended for a wrongdoing, as by including new punishments or broadening sentences; or it might modify the tenets of confirmation so as to make conviction for a wrongdoing likelier than it would have been the point at which the deed was carried out.
Example: While on board a plane, a passenger has a heart attack and is in need of CPR. A Good Samaritan jumps into action and starts to perform CPR on the victim. During chest compressions one of the victim’s ribs is broken from the impact of repeated compressions. The plane lands, the heart attack victim is taken to the hospital and fully recovers. The victim is made aware that a rib was broken during compressions performed by a Good Samaritan. The victim cannot file suit against the Good Samaritan for causing their rib to
there must have been a wrongful act committed and the plaintiff must have suffered. (Cannell)
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
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 standard of care is idealised to suit ethical standards, as opposed to the behaviour and actions of the realistic everyday man. This justifies the issue in accepting a judge’s notion of the standard of care, considering it is diverse according to what each individual justice perceives to be the ethical standard. More so, all justices presented separate tests and reasoning’s in McHale v Watson, and therefore, the standard of care belonging to a child of 12 is ambiguous and variant. The justices, nevertheless, mutually agree that the standard of care is ultimately objective in nature, but a subjective element is necessary to prevent injustices before the law and in society. Even prior to the decision in McHale v Watson, it was noted by justice Macmillan in Glasgow Corp v Muir, that the standard of a reasonable man is ‘in one sense an impersonal test’, whereby it is ‘independent of the idiosyncrasies’ of the individual whose actions are in question; but furthermore, it is also requiring a subjective element – but it is left to the judge to decide what those elements consist of.
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...
Emergency situations can call for an erratic response to someone’s life in which a person is injured or one’s life is in danger. The decision to be a hero or to be saved must be made. Despite the scenario, high emotion may be involved for both the hero and the one being saved. The hero could make the scene worse or cause more injury to the one being save. Furthermore, the hero could be sued for negligence. Issues of being sued could play an impact when a person makes the decision whether to be the hero or remain a bystander. Consequently, the “Good Samaritan Law” benefit those who could be potentially be accused of negligence after giving emergency care. However, lay responders must comply to legal regulations