Keshia Warnken Case Project Professor Howard Hammer Case Project Part One- Table Part Two Theories Negligence/Hospital Negligence Negligence is a tort. “Tort” means a legal wrong, breach of duty, or negligent or unlawful act or omission proximately causing injury or damage to another (Ind. Ann. Code $ 34-18-2-28).Negligence is defined as a failure to exercise that degree of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under like circumstances; or as conduct that creates an undue risk of harm to others; the negligence theory of liability protects interests related to safety or freedom from physical harm(21 Ind. Law Encyc.
The question is how we establish liability in in tort. Tort consists of an act or omission (failure to do something) by the defendant which causes damage to the plaintiff. The
Business Torts Assignment Tort comes from the Latin term tortus, which means “crooked, dubious, twisted.” Tort is some type of interference with someone or with someone’s property that results in injury to persons or property. Tort is defined as a civil wrong, a breach of duty that resulted in an injury or harm to a person, in this case, the plaintiff (Mae Tom). 5 of the Elements of the tort of negligence Element One – The Duty EXPLANATION: Is the standard allowed to carry out an obligation/ task with a level of care. There is a reasonable level of expectation from any action performed by a reasonable and sane mind. The standard or the level of care to be established will depend on culture, reasonableness, statute and the law as it pertains to the circumstance.
Law Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council shows that unsigned exclusion clauses need to be clearly defined to a reasonable person. Another case highlighting the need for exclusions to be clearly informed to the other party is the case of Causer v Browne. As for the case of White v John Warwick & Co Ltd the court held that the company providing defective product is liable for their negligence. If reasonably sufficient notice is given as to the existence of an exemption clause, then it is accepted by the courts that that clause becomes parts of the contract. The case that set this dictum, and which laid our the guidelines for testing the reasonableness and sufficiency of the notice
b. Was there a misstatement of material fact? Yes, because it is information that influenced, in this case, the buyer into acting in a certain way or making a certain decision. c. Did Stein suffer a loss as a result of Gortino’s actions? There isn't enough information to decide if Stein suffered a loss.
A tort is when someone (a person, group, or company) or something causes another person a personal injury or their property to be damaged. Basically, torts are civil wrongs and are legally the grounds for a lawsuit. These can be willful in nature or due to negligence. Torts are in place to make the person causing the injury or damage to be held responsible (accountable) for these actions, injuries or damages. Personal injury can be a wide variety of injuries from a minor abrasion due to a fall up to and including death.
Case 13-8 Accounting for a Loss Contingency for a Verdict on Appeal In this case we are presented with the scenario that a company faces a pending litigation. We are supposed to surmise how this liability will be reported, as well as, the resulting effects on the financials in the years in question. In my opinion, the primary accounting to be resolved is whether to accrue the liability, disclose the liability or simply count it is as immaterial and do nothing. As we progress through the scenario we are presented with subsequent facts which suggest that our decisions will indeed be impacted and changed due to litigation and we must act accordingly. The following are the questions asked by the case and my understanding of applicable GAAP.
All four of the conditions must be met to have the penalty payment excluded from the minimum lease payment. The first test is whether the default provision is customary in financing arrangements. Big Bear’s lease contract meets this condition. The second condition is whether the cause for the default can be objectively determined. Big Bear’s lease contract states that if Big Bear’s financial condition suffers a material adverse change, they would be in default.
If there is a problem with the indorsements, or if the check has been altered, the payor bank can bring a claim against the depositary bank for breach of the warranty. This fits right in with the UCC's general scheme which seeks to place the risk of loss on the party in the best position to prevent the loss. Depositary banks should exercise caution when accepting a deposit
VICARIOUS LIABILITY The tort doctrine that imposes responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has a special relationship (such as Parent and Child, Employer and Employee. Or Owner of vehicle and Driver), to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. Vicarious Liability is a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. It is also referred to as imputed Negligence. Legal relationships that can lead to imputed negligence include the relationship between Parent and Child, Husband and Wife, Owner of a vehicle and Driver, and Employer and Employee.