·Sometimes people excuse the damage they cause by saying this was a mistake or that they did not mean to cause the damage. Is this a valid excuse to avoid liability for damage caused? Explain your answer. With the above question about people that is liable to a damages due to their civil wrong and now finding an excuse to avoid damages. In law, there is no excuse and the defaulter would therefore be liable for their offence committed except if the judge in a court of law based of their reasonable doubt found that it was not proven true that such person would be liable for a damages.
The principle of negligence is to determine a guilty party when someone acts in a careless manner and causes injury to another person. Negligence names the careless person legally liable. In order to win, the plaintiff must prove four different elements. The first element that must be proven is Duty of Care. The defendant must have owed the plaintiff legal duty of care.
On the other hand, in tort and negligence matter, once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be. The test for remoteness of damage in tortuous and negligence matter are whether the kind of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the breach of duty and the damage must be direct consequences of the breach of
The concept of tort also includes violation of constitutional, property and privacy rights. The basic ingredient to constitute a tortious act or a tort is the violation of a legal right of a person. To bring an action of tortious liability, three things need to be proved by the plaintiff: 1. The plaintiff needs to prove that the accused or the defendant was under the obligation to act in a certain manner 2. The plaintiff needs to establish that the defendant breached his duty and did not act in the way he was supposed to ( did not conform his behavior
The word ‘tort’ in law means a legal wrong or injury that has several elements, of which the most important element is that it is redressible in nature for the benefit of the person wronged or injured. The wrong or injury can consist of several civil wrongs like negligence, assault, battery, defamation etc. Therefore, tort is a breach of some duty, independent of contract, giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable . In tort law, the aggrieved party is provided relief in the form of damages. Damages are a form of compensation given for breach, loss or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
Third, the professional is not under a contractual or fiduciary obligation to give the information or advice. Forth, the information or advice given in circumstances which a reasonable personnel was being trusted and skill or judgment was being relied on. Lastly, the professional chooses to give that information or advice. Special relationship doctrine is a legal principle stated that the third party are liable for the harm inflicted on the individual and the third party assumed control over the individual by triggering an affirmative duty in order to
Civil Offenses Requiring Proof of Specific Intent Conversion Intent to exercise dominion and control over another’s property Trespass to Land Intentional interference with land of another State of mind becomes particularly relevant when the courts decide on the punitive damages to be awarded in torts cases. Where punitive damages are asked, the state of mind of defendant is the only issue. The purpose of the award of such damages is to punish the defendant for his willful, wanton or malicious conduct. 1.1 Intent For the purposes of deciding intentional torts cases, intent is essential and not purpose or motive. The position of the law is that a wrongful act done intentionally provides for an actionable claim, regardless of bad purpose or a motive to injure or cause harm .
Even though they were within one court system, both establishments were dealing with cases in their own individual ways. In the case of Patel v Ali , it was evident that equity exercises discretion, nonetheless this can be questionable. The differentiation between common law and equity is shown clearly in this case within the remedy that was offered, as mentioned before equitable remedy is discretionary whereas common law does not. The common law remedy proposed to Patel was to pay damages; due to the dilemma she was in had created unfairness, so using equitable remedies (specific performance) would have failed. “A trust is an equitable obligation binding a person (trustee) to deal with property over which he has control for the benefit of persons (beneficiary)…” .
Such rule must be lawful and reasonable. The employee must be knowledgeable of the rule. The rule must be uniformly applied. The dismissal must be considered an appropriate sanction. • Capacity of the employee In order for the dismissal to be regarded as fair there must be evidence indicating either one of the following: Under poor work performance which means that an: The employee failed to meet a performance standards The employee was given a fair opportunity to meet the required performance standard.
The servant is entrusted the style during which the work is to be done. Therefore the master is in charge of the wrongs or omissions of his servant, thus entrusted to try and do the act. In keeping with this maxim, the master or principal is control liable either for the style of doing such work by his servant or the work ought to not be done by his servant below such circumstances. However it's to be unbroken in mind that the master isn't control liable, if the servant will the act below sudden want, throughout the course of his employment, while not being entrusted the least