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.
This requires specific intention, which shows that the D must have been culpable voluntarily. Regarding its role in civil law, it is essential to prove fault in some areas, but not in others. For example proving fault is crucial for a successful claim in negligence. Here, fault is tested in breach, which states that D is at fault if they do not act like the ordinary, sensible individual. For example, the defendant in Paris V Stepney BC was at fault by failing to provide protective goggles when the ordinary, prudent employer would have.
The negligence was certainly made by the driver , but in what capacity. Proximate: This form of negligence requires foreseeability of what happened Causation: The basis upon which a lawsuit may be brought to the court Negligence: would be carelessness except the following did occur: The tortfeasor was under a duty to use due care. The tortfeasor breached that duty of due care. The tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of injuries or damages. The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages.
Negligence can be defined as the “the failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances”. The entity or individual can be held responsible for conduct where reasonable care was not exercised. There are five elements that are required to prove negligence: a legal duty to exercise reasonable care, failure in exercising reasonable care, negligent actions caused physical harm, that harm caused actual damages, and the harm was within the scope of liability. (1) The legal theory of vicarious liability is the underpinnings of the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. This legal doctrine supports the concept of holding the employer or principal legally responsible for the negligent acts of the employee or agent.
Effective Risk Management Law/531 December 5, 2011 Effective Risk Management A tort is defined as a civil wrong between people and/or entities (Cheeseman 2010). There are two types of torts. The two are intentional and unintentional torts. An intentional tort is when there is intent to cause harm on another. An unintentional tort is when a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions due to negligence (Cheeseman 2010).
57 Am. Jur. 2d Negligence § 798 (2014) Contributory negligence is defined as the injured party that can be partly responsible for the part they played in the incident. This means that the injured person should not recover damages when it appeared that the incident could have been avoided” but for” the plaintiff’s behavior. The plaintiff should not ask for others to exercise more care than he would from himself.
It is worth clarifying how a negligence claim differs from a contractual claim or a claim for fraud. A contractual claim arises when two parties have a contract, one party breaches the contract and the other party suffers losses as a result. So, any dispute that arises between the surveyor and his customer (that is, the party who engaged him to carry out the survey) is a contractual dispute and may give rise to a contractual claim. A negligence claim is different. Although the surveyor is engaged by one party, the fact is that other parties such as buyers and banks may rely on the accuracy of the certificates that he issues.
According to Auditing Standard, it is required the auditor must exercise the reasonable care and skill which expected to a professional. Moffit J in Pacific Acceptance Corporation v Forsyth and Others (1970) 90 WN (NSW) 29 described, “it is beyond question that when an auditor, professing as he does to possess the requisite skills, enters into a contract to perform certain tasks as auditors; he promises to perform such tasks using that degree of skill and care as is reasonable in the circumstances as they then exist.” Negligence is defined as any conduct that is careless or unintentional in nature and cause a breach of any contractual duty or duty of care in tort owed to another person or persons (Godsell, 1993). Where the auditor breaches the duty of care and has been negligent in conducting the audit work, consequently the auditor may be liable for any loss suffered from the auditor’s actions. Refer to ASA 200 – overall responsibility of auditor in conducting an audit is to consider the appropriateness of management’s use of the loan assumption in the preparation of the financial report, even if the framework of financial report does not take account of an explicit requirement for finance company to take accurate assessment of the company’s ability to borrow and continue its debt. The auditor has responsibility to obtain an understanding of the company as well as its events and conditions related to business risks, which may cast substantial doubt on the company’s capability when performing audit procedure throughout the audit.
The issue to be dealt with in this problem is misrepresentation. It is therefore necessary to advise SkyReach Ltd. on the possible courses of action regarding misrepresentation. First, the ability of SkyReach Ltd. to rescind the contract on the grounds of ‘ innocent misrepresentation,’ based on the fact that Holgers statement regarding planning permission, was not a factual statement but a statement of opinion made prior to the contract. Also the possibility of a claim for damages based on the fact that Holger’s statement was non fraudulent. Each claim will be examined separately.
Elements of Fraud While different jurisdictions may have their own definitions, under common law in the United States, fraud includes the following elements: a representation, or statement, of fact; the falsity of that representation — the statement must be untrue; the statement must be material, meaning that it is important or relevant; the speaker must know the statement is false; the speaker intends the statement to be relied on; the hearer does not know the statement is not true; the hearer relies on the truth of the statement to make a decision; the hearer's right to rely on the statement — the hearer has no reason to think the statement might not be true; and the hearer must suffer some kind of damages. Put simply, the speaker must tell a lie about something important that he knows is a lie, and which he intends the hearer to believe to be the truth. The hearer must not know that it's a lie, have no reason to think the lie might not be true, and must depend on that lie to make a decision. The hearer's decision to depend on the lie as the truth must then cause some damage to the hearer. Types There are many types of fraud, but fraudulent activities can usually be grouped into three basic categories: government,