The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff 2.) The defendant breached that duty 3.) The plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury 4.) The defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff’s injury When these elements are brought together, they unitedly constitute actionable negligence. The test of negligence is what a person of ordinary prudence or a reasonable person would or would not do in the same or similar circumstances.
In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
These can include medical bills, property damage cost of repair, and even loss of pay. Punitive damages are not intended to compensate the injured for losses, but as a punishment for the wrong doer and to deter them from committing this act again, or prevent the same negligence in the future. The four elements of a negligence action that must exist for a plaintiff to win a negligence action are duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages/injury. The plaintiff must prove all of these elements in order to be successful in a negligence claim. The first element, Duty, can be looked at almost like the Golden Rule.
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
Defenses and Due Process Kylee Rivers CJS/220 Defenses and Due Process According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), an individual is only charged for a crime he/she committed intentionally. He suggests that such a crime must be without defense so that an individual is declared guilty. Defenses are situations that can stop or lessen the guilt in a case. Presentations of evidence for such situations ensure an accused person is defended from guilt. According to Gardner and Anderson (2011), the common elements of defense include insanity, entrapment and self-defense.
If this person does not follow the standard of care and someone suffers harm or loss as a result then the individual has been negligent. If someone has a duty of care towards another person and does not exercise an appropriate standard of care in all circumstances, then the duty of care has been breached. If someone can prove that you did something you should not have done, or failed to do something that you should have done, which resulted in an injury, then you have breached your duty of care and could be sued. Duty of care is hard to define because there is no legal definition, although it is a legal obligation. It is an idea based on the legal concept of negligence.
It may boil down to which attorney wins the heart of the judge, but according to the text it says “the outcome depends on the how the judge decides a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would act in the particular circumstances of the case” (Roger LeRoy Miller, 2010). We know that Mrs. Esposito suffered an injury as a result of the collision. We know that Mr. Davis was the cause of that collision. I think that Mr. Davis did breach his duty of care because “individuals are required to exercise a reasonable standard of care in their activities.” The Reasonable Person Standards the courts use state that “If the so-called reasonable person existed, he or she would be careful, conscientious, even tempered and honest” (Roger LeRoy Miller, 2010). In this case Mr. Davis was neither, careful or conscientious.
Element Two– Breach of Duty EXPLANATION: This is an action below an acceptable level of responsibilty or inaction of this responsibility can result in a breach of that required duty and may result in lawsuits from negligence, especially in a professional capacity (Professional negligence). Under Tort, negligence will need to be proved, to do this it has to be established whether such duty exist and if the duty was
ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE Is the Case an Appropriate One for Punitive Damages? It is the responsibility of the trial judge, in the first instance, to determine whether the case is appropriate for punitive damages, i.e. whether the question of punitive damages will be submitted to the jury.' The main focus of that determination is the nature of the defendant's conduct. The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others.
The tort of negligence is a term that escapes complete definition. Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury. It includes carelessness and lack of foresight; however the significance of negligence in tort is much broader. In law, it is defined as the “omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” (Alderson, 1856) [Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.] [1856] in this essay I will discuss the essential ingredients that make up the tort of negligence.