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. Negligence that renders one liable to another who is injured thereby is the doing of some act or thing that it is his or her duty to refrain from doing or in failing to do some act or thing that it is such
We all have a responsibility not to injure others, and when we breach that duty, we commit a tort. Torts can be intentional, as in the case of civil assault and battery, false imprisonment, etc., or unintentional, which is covered by an area of the law we call negligence. As you might suspect from the statement above, torts are the civil equivalent of criminal concepts like criminal assault and battery or criminal false imprisonment. Criminal law addresses a civic duty we owe society, while torts point to a civic duty we owe someone else specifically. The one thing you want to keep in mind with torts is that when an employee brings a tort claim against his or her employer, that employee may be entitled not only to compensatory damages (remember, to make them whole again) but also “punitive damages,” designed to punish the offending party and discourage others from doing the same.
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.
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
This could in some instances include family members or close friends of the person who committed the crime.” (2006, p.1) The impact of such crimes is long lasting in particularly for violent crimes. The victims of violent crimes, if the survive at all; suffer from both physical and psychological scars. These scars can often result in tremendous loss both in their personal lives and or their work lives. When a victim has suffered from a horrific crime, the courts have occasionally considered victim's compensation as a means of at least to a degree making up for individual’s losses. Smith (2006) defines victim compensation as a “form of income redistribution designed to redistribute wealth from offenders to victims of crime” (307).
Business Law 100 Assignment 1 Good Grocers, Inc. Situation 1 Using Alternative Dispute Resolution to reach an agreeable settlement in this of case is the best choice for both parties. Premise liability occurs when injury is suffered on property belonging to another person or business. Whether it is the conditions of the land, or activities performed, issues often arise in determining fault. When personal injury occurs it is often the first response to assign causality for the accident, but it can be difficult to prove whether the fault is on the injured party or the owner of the property where the injury occurred – often times there is no clear answer. While the repercussions of slip and fall accidents can vary from minor scrapes and bruises to serious injuries, the accidents often leave the victim in physical and/or emotional pain.
John has the option of requesting compensatory and punitive damages caused by discrimination form his employer. If he does not receive the type of justice he seeks with the court’s decision, he can file appeals. If he exhausts all of his appeals, his case may lead to the Supreme Court. His case can only make it this far by following all steps set forth by the EEOC. Conclusion The EEOC provides employees with an opportunity to have an independent investigator review possible discriminatory employment practices within a private organization.
Compensatory damages are the awarded money by a judge and jury which may be to pay the cost for medical bills, funeral and burial, and other expenses they had to incur as the direct result of the wrongful death. Most often, families of deceased parties prove their compensatory damages in court by submitting receipts for the services and products they paid for. The family of wrongful death can even get paid on punitive damages, when party’s
A person may be part of a protected class but not qualified for the job so the employer cannot reasonably consider that person for the position. A person may have applied for a position that the employer was not actively seeking to fill, or the person may not belong to a protected class at all. However, when all four factors are present, there is quite a lot of evidence to prove the case of discrimination. Once an employee or job applicant files a charge enforcement proceedings begin. The main issue is to prove, by either direct or circumstantial evidence, if the employer’s actions were motivated by discriminatory intent.
As such, the law is entitled to create laws that protect the society even if it means infringing on an individual freedom to make his or her own decisions. Hart on the other hand, argued that people’s right to freedom, to act as they deem fit, should be upheld and the only justification for infringing on that right is when the behaviour causes harm to others. This paper argues that an individual’s freedom of choice, to act as