A number of aspects of liability rise from this case study and each
one will be discussed.
With regards to the headaches suffered by Karl, it is necessary to
look at private nuisance. Negligence is disregarded as it is assumed
from the details in the case study that the headaches suffered are not
so serious as to cause personal injury, it is just described as ‘mere
discomfort’. Such a claim under the law of nuisance requires three
factors to be fulfilled. The first being a continuous interference.
This is shown in De Keyser’s Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914) 30
TLR 257. From the case study one can assume that it is a continuing
interfering act and not a one off.
Secondly, the interference must be unlawful or unreasonable. This is
up to the claimant to prove. The rule for this is sic utere tuo ut
alienum non laedas (So use your own property as not to injure your
neighbour's). The locality in this instance reflects the
unreasonableness of Jane’s actions. It occurred in a residential area
and therefore such Gases were not to be expected. The duration of the
act will also be taken into account. Because Jane is a young inventor
it is assumed her work is an ongoing process and not a one off as
explained above. The seriousness is also considered. In Walter v
Selfe (1851), Knight-Bruce V C said “an inconvenience materially
interfering with the ordinary comfort physically of human existence,
not merely according to elegant or dainty modes and habits of living,
but according too the plain sober and simple notions among the English
people.” This shows Jane’s actions would be deemed unreasonable,
heightened by the fact that the incident occurred in a housing area,
not an industrial estate. The sensitivity of the defendant, the
utility of his conduct and a malicious aspect may be also discussed
but this is not relevant in this case. Thus the second aspect of
unlawful or unreasonable interference is established.
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.
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.
Engineers, contractors, and other businesses must be mindful of and knowledgeable of their legal obligations when performing their occupation or supplying a product. Negligence in the design or construction of a product that results in damage or bodily harm, or could result in damage or bodily harm, can result in liability for economic loss under Canadian Tort law. Engineers, architects, and contractors need to be respectful of their duty of care to ensure their product is precisely produced with no danger of negligence.
The plaintiff Michael Aloe, widower of Robin Aleo, brought a suit individually and on behalf of his wife’s estate in Massachusetts/ U.S. First Circuit, against SLB Toys, Amazon.com Inc., Toys “R” Us, and Amazon.com Kids, Inc., after his wife dies from injuries sustained when an inflatable pool slide collapsed while she was sliding down. The decedent was attempting to slide down head first in an inflatable, in-ground swimming pool slide imported and sold by Toys R Us. The pool slide collapsed and caused her to strike her head on the concrete deck of the pool. The decedent fractured two cervical vertebrae and suffered a severed spinal cord. She died the following day after she was removed from life support.
As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort of negligent investigation in Canada, but Mr. Hill was investigated under code of care and no tort of negligent investigation during his investigation. While the argument of minority believes the tort of negligent investigation should be recognized in Canada, and the police had been negligent, the argument of minority is more compelling than majority.
Do you remember the lawsuit about the woman who ordered the McDonald’s coffee and spilled it in her lap and sued McDonald’s because it did not have a warning label on it? What about the woman who fell in the fountain at the mall while texting and wants to sue the mall? These lawsuits may seem fairly farfetched. They fall into the category called frivolous.
The main purpose of this Essay is to advise the parties as to any potential liability in tort and under the protection from Harassment Act 1997, also to find out the particulars of the case and list the points that are necessary in order for someone be found guilty.
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).
Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
It seems as though Brad and Chardonnay have been subject to professional negligence, or more specific negligent misstatement. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, one of the significant difference being you cannot claim for economic loss within general negligence but you can in professional (provided specific criteria are met).
she would not otherwise do. The focus of this paper is going to based on the
This essay focuses on intentional tort, which includes trespass to person consisting of battery, assault and false imprisonment, which is actionable per se. It also examines protection from harassment act. The essay commences with a brief description of assault, battery and false imprisonment. It goes further advising the concerned parties on the right to claim they have in tort law and the development of the law over the years, with the aid of case law, principles and statutes.
Frivolous Lawsuits As children our parents tried to instill in all of us good moral judgment and common sense. However, if I was to open the newspaper I would surely find any number of articles on the latest frivolous lawsuit, these being even more outrageous than the ones in yesterday’s paper. How have we as a society, which is completely capable of rational thinking, allowed ourselves to become so intertwined in the blaming game?
allow a remedy in a particular case as it would open the doors to many