The law allows people to claim compensation in the civil courts if they themselves have been injured, their reputation damaged or property harmed.
Having bought herself a cheap windsurfer, Ursula decided to teach herself to windsurf on a lake near her home. After several hours' practice, she began to tire and decided to have one last attempt at crossing the lake. She failed to notice Vera, who was fishing from a boat on the lake. Unfortunately, Ursula crashed into the boat, which capsized, and Vera lost her expensive fishing equipment in the lake. The law allows people to claim compensation in the civil courts if they themselves have been injured, their reputation damaged or property harmed. It is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal liability; both elements are necessary under the criminal common law to sustain a guilty conviction. It is not necessary in every instance to prove malice within the civil courts but, within the law of torts, the courts are more concerned with the effects of injurious conduct than with the motives than inspired it. Negligent torts are the most common type of torts. Negligent torts are not deliberate, but arise when someone fails to act as a reasonable person to someone he/she owes a duty to, resulting in an injury. Negligence can be summed up as one's failure to exercise reasonable care. More specifically, a negligent act occurs when there is failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or
Explain the three elements of the tort of negligence and advise Mumbridge plc whether it is likely to be liable to compensate James who claims the company has been negligent.
Module Title: Introduction to Business Law Module Code: LWB1008C Module Leader: Roger Thomas ____________________________________________________________ Assignment Mumbridge plc is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing a range of pharmaceutical products including Zaba, a pill, which is sold to University lecturers to boost their energy levels. The Zaba is sold exclusively via a chain of chemists shops Tilalot Ltd. Tilalot is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mumbridge plc. James a lecturer has purchased the Zaba from the Cambridge branch of Tilalot Ltd and used it according to the instructions on the packet for 12 months. James likes to drink al least five cups of coffee a day. He recently suffered a nervous breakdown and is not expected to make a full recovery. Newly published research has shown that the Zaba can cause depression if taken by someone drinking more than four cups of coffee a day. ) Explain the three elements of the tort of negligence and advise Mumbridge plc whether it is likely to be liable to compensate James who claims the company has been negligent. A tort can be defined as a civil wrong. This means that it is a wrong behaviour that causes harm to a person, his property, reputation and trade. It is based on the breach of duty which is imposed by the law and therefore not like the obligations voluntarily accepted to a contract. The law seeks to provide
Personal Injury.
Personal Injury There are 3 forms of trespass to the person - - Assault - Battery - False imprisonment Trespass to the person is an intentional conduct by the defendant. The rules relates to the defendant's actions, not necessarily harm that results from his actions. Trespass to the person is actionable per se. Stanley v Powell [1891] The defendant had inflicted injury neither intentionally no negligently when he fired a shot, which ricocheted off a tree and hit the plaintiff. It was held that trespass to the person is a fault-based tort. Fowler v Lanning [1959] Neither intention nor negligence was alleged by the plaintiff who was injured by a shot from the defendant's gun. It was held that since the claim lacked an allegation of intention or negligence, it was struck out as no cause of action. In trespass to the person, the burden of proving negligence lies in the plaintiff. Letang v Cooper [1965] The defendat negligently drove his car over the legs of the plaintiff who was sun bathing in the hotel car park. The action in negligence was time barred. The plaintiff relied in an effort to prevent her action from being statute barred. It was held that actions for personal injuries should no longer be divided into trespass (where harm is direct) and negligence (where harm is indirect). Where the conduct was negligent, the action lay in negligence. Wilson v
Causality in Lynch Vs. Fisher. Did the original negligence of the driver of the parked truck set in motion a chain of circumstances following consecutively one upon the other which led to plaintiffs injury?
Scott Schauer 7/28/10 Philosophy of Law Causality in Lynch v. Fisher Causation presents a very difficult task in some tort claims. Our central concern is to find a balance between the responsibility and fairness of each claim, which sometimes gets obscured by the difficulty in proving causation. Clearly, the case of Lynch v. Fisher represents the Law of Torts, and correspondingly etches out the subtle differences each action has on the outcome of all claims of causality. In the case of Lynch v. Fisher a truck driver, who is an employee of the defendants, Harry Fisher and Roger Wheless, parked a pulpwood truck on the right-hand side of a main highway. The truck driver then proceeded to leave the area where he had negligently parked the truck. Shortly after, a passenger car, driven by the defendant, Robert Gunter, along with his wife in the passenger seat, violently collided with the parked truck and sent them into disarray. Robert Gunter was also held negligent for operating his car at an unlawful speed and not paying attention to the road. A nearby good Samaritan and also plaintiff of the case, William Lynch, heard the collision and rushed to the scene to save Mr. Gunter and his wife. While pulling Mrs. Gunter out of the car which had just caught fire, he found a hand gun near the floor mat and proceeded to hand it to Mr. Gunter while attending to his wife. In
Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They are apparently allocated in different areas of law, functioning in England and Wales. In first case claimant is Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd and brings a sui
Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They are apparently allocated in different areas of law, functioning in England and Wales. In first case claimant is Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd and brings a suit against Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd.1 The case lays down principles relating to negligence in law of tort, more precisely remoteness of damage. Second case Hadley v Baxendale2 is sequentially leading case on remoteness of damage in contract law. This principle links these two cases together and also demonstrates differences between them. According to Oxford dictionary of law3 remoteness of damage is "the extent to which a defendant is liable for the consequences of his wrongful act or omission." Cases mentioned above will be presented in light of this significant principle, which limit the types of loss that are recoverable. First of all the facts of the cases are relevant to present principles in area of tort and contract law. The Wagon Mound No 11case is about the defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound. It discharged furnace oil into Sydney Harbour. The wind and tide carried the oil beneath Claimant's wharf where on by Claimant's employees welding operations were being carried. Claimant's employees continued their work after being advised that they could safely weld. After about 55 to 60 hours the original discharge,
Negligence as a tort.
Negligence as a tort may be defined as the breach of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff by not complying with the standard of care of the reasonable person which results in the plaintiff suffering damage. The damage may be personal injury, damage to property or just pure economic loss. It may in addiction, consist of psychiatric damage also known as "nervous shock". Before 1932, the Courts followed precedent in earlier cases that if a duty of care was held to exist in a similar earlier case then the judge held there was a duty of care but if a duty was held not to exist in an earlier case then the judge held there was no duty. There were very few factual situations where a duty was held to exist. In Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) Lord Atkin, in attempting to trace a common thread through existing authority, formulated a general principle - the "neighbour principle" - for determining whether, in any given case, a duty of care should exist. He said: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour.... Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question." The significance of this principle was that it firmly
IN THIS REPORT I WILL INVOLVE THE CONCERNS, WHICH YOU ARE FACING ABOUT THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF YOUR BUSINESS
For: Steve Watkins From: Nathan Cozzetto Ref: Civil Liability Date: 29/12/04 IN THIS REPORT I WILL INVOLVE THE CONCERNS, WHICH YOU ARE FACING ABOUT THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF YOUR BUSINESS. .0 INTRODUCTION. As we are all aware the business, which we are involved in, deals with direct contact with the general public, also the activities on offer are a wide range of extreme types of sport. Being aware of this you have asked me to find out the legal liability that you may encounter. So picking out the main points I have decided to look at: * The law of negligence with the effect on the business. * The employer's liability for the actions of employees. * The liability of occupiers to visitors and trespassers. 2.0 THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE The definition of negligence "liability in the tort of negligence arises where foreseeable damage to the plaintiff is caused by the defendants breach of legal duty to take care." What this means in an understandable explanation is that, for example, someone who has decided to do an activity such as rock climbing, has fallen from a height, which has then lead to a foreseeable damage such as a broken leg or sprained ankle. As the client has obtained an injury they have looked into compensation for the accident if we as the company hadn't taken the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of all clients, such as safety equipment and making
A Tort System In Need of Repair
Adam Bielsky October 21st 2002 AP Economics/ Wilson A TORT SYSTEM IN NEED OF REPAIR A successful New York plaintiff's attorney drives his $145,000 Ferrari F50 down the streets of Manhattan with a bumper sticker under his license plate saying "ALL YOU NEED IS AN ACCIDENT AND A DREAM." Living in a luxurious mansion just outside of Westchester County, this attorney, who manages a successful liability practice, flamboyantly advertises on television the slogan, "If you've been hurt in any kind of accident, you may be entitled to a large cash reward." This slogan catches the eye of a woman who telephones this attorney to explain the injuries that she had recently suffered. A year later, a Bronx jury awards $4.2 million in damages to the woman who sued New York City after she slipped on a snowy sidewalk and damaged a knee joint while chasing her dog. We have all heard the outrageous stories about the woman who spilled coffee on herself and won millions or the doctor who won millions because his BMW had a bad paint job. Lawsuit abuse is a major problem in our society and an enormous drain on the U.S. economy. In the last 20 years alone, tort fillings have risen 60 percent. There is a tremendous need to reform America's tort system because it is currently not working. While some progress has been made on legislative tort reform, there is still a great need for more. In 1994,
I have been asked to advise the Crown Prosecution Service on the appropriate homicide charges to bring against Fred and Mike.
I have been asked to advise the Crown Prosecution Service on the appropriate homicide charges to bring against Fred and Mike. In English criminal law homicide is a generic term covering a number of offences. All homicides are concerned with the unlawful killing of a human being; what distinguishes them is either the state of mind of the defendant who caused the death, or the defences available. The most serious offence which may have realistically occurred in this case is murder. Murder, a common law offence, is the most serious of all offences and is punishable by a mandatory life sentence. The Actus Reus for murder is 'the unlawful killing of another human being', that is the death of a victim that is a 'life in being', Re Poulton1 where it was established that a 'life in being' meant that a child must be expelled from its mother's body, a foetus does not count as a life. The Mens Rea for murder expressed in Coke's2 classic definition refers to the defendant having 'malice aforethought' or more simply, the intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm. Re R v Vickers3, where the latter (GBH) was accepted as sufficient Mens Rea as if the defendant was willing to inflict grievous bodily harm, then how was he to know that the victim wouldn't die? This was later confirmed in the case of Cunningham4. With regards to 'intention' it was verified in the case of Woolin5 that
![How far has the test for duty of care in negligence provided in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] been affected by the case of Osman v U.K. [1998]?](https://mbt-essays-prod-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/72309/listing/72309_1.jpg)
How far has the test for duty of care in negligence provided in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] been affected by the case of Osman v U.K. [1998]?
How far has the test for duty of care in negligence provided in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] been affected by the case of Osman v U.K. [1998]? The tort of negligence is one of the areas of law where the conflict between public policy and the need for justice is most evident. There are three factors involved in establishing negligence. These are: a duty of care, a breach of that duty and consequent damage1. Duty of care is the legal obligation to take reasonable cares to avoid causing damage 2. The concept of a duty of care in negligence arose in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson3. Lord Atkin in his speech formulated the 'neighbour principle'4. Since that time the tort of negligence has changed immensely and the role of policy has become very important in identifying when a duty of care is owed5. The House of Lords in Anns v Merton Borough Council extended the approach in Donoghue. Lord Wilberforce introduced the two-stage test. Along with Atkin's neighbour principle the policy question would arise: is there any valid policy reason to deny the existence of duty of care? The modern test was laid down in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman6 where the damage to the plaintiff should be reasonably foreseeable, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant must be suffiently proximate. Moreover, to impose a duty of care it must be fair, just and reasonable. Although
