Essay On Critical Analysis Of Negligence

The textbook, “Business law today” (2014), clarifies that tort is a wrongful act that results in harm or injury to another and leads to civil liability. Tort law is designed to compensate those who have suffered a loss or injury due to another person 's wrongful act.

In the history of the justice system, there have been a number of famous cases. Perhaps, one of the most profound ones in this spectrum is the Mapp v Ohio case of 1961. It is important to point out that the case had a vast impact on criminal procedures in the United States of America, as a whole. Consequently, it bore great significance with regard to handling cases in which evidence is obtained through violations of the Fourth Amendment. Notably, the fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable seizures and searches. In the light of the sentiment presented above, this paper discusses the circumstances that led to the case being heard in court. It explores the events that took place at each level of the case, the issues addressed

malpractice insurance, greatly influences medical professionals (Braunstein, 2012). Healthcare costs in the United States are, in general, expensive. However, the cost of medical malpractice insurance coverage is becoming so expensive that they are starting to affect the practices of medicine. Due to this, many states have passed tort reform measures to limit the amounts rewarded to plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits (Hellinger & Encinosa, 2006).

The elements of a negligence case consist of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages. The first element of negligence is duty.

A warrant is a document which gives law enforcement the authorization or the right from a judge to conduct a search of an area or make an arrest of a person. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to show probable cause to a judge to be able to obtain a warrant. The search warrant is limited to only the location or the person listed and law enforcement must obtain another warrant to cover other areas not included. When a search warrant is issued, property and persons found at that location with the connection to that property may be taken into custody. Probable cause which is needed to obtain a warrant also allows law enforcement to search areas without a warrant.

In this case the court ruled that, anyone can be responsible for intentional tort, as long as the responsible person knew that the act carried a risk of injury.

“Medical malpractice claims and lawsuits deal with Improper, unskilled, or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional. Negligence is the predominant theory of liability concerning allegations of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of Tort Law. Since the 1970s, medical malpractice has been a controversial social issue. Physicians have complained about the large number of malpractice suits and have urged legal reforms to curb large damage awards, whereas tort attorneys have argued that negligence suits are an effective way of compensating victims of negligence and of policing the medical profession. A person who alleges negligent medical malpractice must

In 1976, Howard Bettel and some friends entered Ki Yim’s store. After the boys began acting outrageously, an employee asked them to leave. Instead of immediately leaving the property, the boys went to the front of the store and began throwing wooden matches on the sidewalk. One of the matches ignited and caused a small fire inside the store. The employee and the owner of the store put out the fire and Yim grabbed Bettel with both hands to restrain him. While grabbing Bettel, Yim’s forehead hit him in the face causing severe injuries to his nose.

This is a case concerning negligence. The plaintiff, Mr. Davis’s wife, wishes to bring this case to the court under negligence law because of the death of her husband in a car accident. There are two defendants in this case. The first defendant, GM Holden Ltd, is a car manufacturer. The second defendant, Brown’s employee, is a truck driver.

The case of R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie is an interesting case, where the city got into an agreement with a private corporation, for the disposal of waste that was within the city. The city was unable to maintain their operation of waste disposal. The private company started piling waste into the creek, to which they were eventually charged, as well as the city. This essay will be organized by answering the questions in chronological order; to which in the first question, I will be looking heavily into the case of R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie and Roach. It will incorporate the regulatory offences and the mental blameworthiness and how strict liability acts as a balance between the two. It will also include the defence of due diligence. Which would bring in the next question of absolute liability offences. I will be focusing on several other cases presented in class, R.v. Saulte Ste. Marie and Roach to further explain the question.

Whenever the death of a person results from any act, conduct, occurrence, transaction, or circumstances which, if death had not ensued, would have entitled such person to recover damages in respect thereof, the person or party who, or the corporation which, would have been liable if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages, not withstanding the death of the person injured.

The legal definition of a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another person. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which resulted in harm and are the most heard legal proceedings. Being that torts are various and plenty it must also be stated that a tort can be subjective depending upon the parties involved. Not only can a tort be subjective to the parties involved but also the litigation involved with defining that tort by a court of law is also subject to prejudice by those who may or may not see it as a wrongful act. While tort law may be a valid means of regulation in jurisdictions with established and accessible bodies of common law,

In the case Lindner Fund v. Abney there was a corporation located in Phoenix, Arizona called Texscan Corporation. This company was audited by Coopers & Lybrand (Cooper) in which reviewed financial records. One of the investors of Texscan was Lindner Funds and after receiving and reviewing the audited financial material from Texscan, Lindner Funds made the decision to invest in Texscan. But there was an unknown reason Texsca, suffered financial difficulties and Lindner suffered as well. Due to the suffering Linder Funds decided to charge legal proceedings against Coopers, stating negligence in audit of financial records and accounting malpractice. When considering the “Ultramare Doctrine” its only applied when a proof of negligence existed

Tort of negligence is the failure to act as a reasonable person to exercise the standard of care required by the law and resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. To prove negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant causing the damage was not only the actual cause of damage. He also show that the proximate cause of the damage. Proximity is the legal relationship between the parties from which the law will attribute a duty of care. And to prove negligence the type of the damage that occurred must have been foreseeable. Foreseeability means whether a ‘reasonable person’ would have foreseen the damage in the situations. It is the leading test which is used to determine proximate cause. The important point is a duty of care may not be owed to a particular claimant, if a claimant was unforeseeable. Foreseeability and proximate cause will be discussed

The lion's share tenet is that if a man is harmed while endeavoring to safeguard someone else or property from peril, the rescuer is not contributory careless unless the behavior is foolhardy.