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.
Discuss the extent to which liability in English Law is, and should be fault based. ‘Fault’ is given to a person when they have done something wrong, i.e in terms of ‘blame’ or ‘responsibility’. A person may be blamed and justifiably made liable for actions that can be described as being their fault.When it comes to criminal law, it is the prosecutions role to establish that the defendant has carried out the unlawful act, known as the actus reus, and at that time the defendant had the guilty mind, known as the mens rea. Simply, the deft is made accountable for the fact that he is at ‘fault’ for his actions. If he is responsible he should be ‘blamed’ through a conviction and then ‘punished’ with his sentence.
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 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
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.
Intentional Tort M230/HSC2641 October 20, 2013 Robert Feightner Intentional Tort Intentional tort is a deliberate or premeditated injury that is inflicted on one person by another individual. It can be separated into six categories, which are assault, battery, false imprisonment, defamation of character, fraud, and invasion of privacy. A person who is suffering from those injuries whether it is mental or physical injuries can file for a tort case, which may result in monetary damages. However, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff duty of care, caused their injuries, to include, failed to provide proper standard of care (Pearson Education, 2010). An example of intentional tort under the category battery
When you retire to the jury room, you will be asked two questions. First, did the negligence of either R.C. Brahman or Mahal Amrit proximately cause the occurrence in question? If you answer yes, then you will be asked to find the percentage of responsibility attributable to the negligent party. Remember, the occurrence in question is the damage to the bull, not the wreck between Kelly Hereford and Mrs. Amrit.
Debates about punishment are important in their own right, but they also raise more general problems about the proper standards for evaluating social practices. The main part of this theoretical overview of the subject of legal punishment concentrates on these issues of justification. That discussion is preceded by an analysis of the concept of punishment and is followed by a brief account of how theories for justifying punishment can relate to decisions about the substantive criminal law and criminal procedures. The concept of punishment Punishment is not an exclusive province of the law. Parents punish their children, and members of private associations punish their wayward fellows.
The first element, Duty, can be looked at almost like the Golden Rule. Everyone has a general duty to carry out a reasonable care toward other people and their property. The second element comes into play if a person acts unreasonably. Their unreasonable action is then considered a breach of duty of care of element one (duty).For the law to determine whether a person's conduct is reasonable or not, the law has to ask: “Would a person of average intelligence and general regard for others have acted in the same way?” If the obvious answer is a no, then the person's behavior was unreasonable and thus, a
The question was that “who then in law is my neighbour? The answer was that anyone who is closely and directly affected by your act, to reasonably have them in contemplation as being affected when you are directed to a act. Duty of care This was brought to existence by Lord Bridge in Caparon Industries v Dickman (1990) in this case: The test in this case was that it must be clarified whether the loss was foreseeable i.e. if it could have been prevented as in case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) in the neighbour principle. If the loss was foreseeable, whether there was a sufficient relationship of proximity between the parties should be