1 – BBALLB - B REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN TORT
Remoteness of damages in tort law is often related to the tort of negligence. It also forms a critical part one of the most critical parts which has been claimed in breach of contract. The remoteness of damages in tort of negligence is where some of the most important developments have taken place. We now have to find out what makes this different from other torts
Before one of the landmark cases the traditional method of judging the case was once a breaches in the duty of care was established, a defendant would be held liable for all the consequent damage which was caused no matter how
…show more content…
Many forms of damage of varying forms of degree can be foreseen as the potential consequence of an action.
The main and important approaches to remoteness which exists in negligence was accepted and was later applied by New Zealand
There were other cases as well, one of the most notable cases in New Zealand named
Taupo Borough v. Birnie- In this case, a hotel had two streams flowing under it, eventually due to various circumstances the streams over flooded and caused damage to the hotel.
In this case it was held that the damage caused to the hotel was foreseeable and the hotel did not take action despite accidents like this happening previously as well.even though the extent of loss suffered is than what could have been foreseen that kind of damage is certainly foreseeable and that alone is required to satisfy the test.
Nowadays it is very hard to say whether all the issues which are brought up in negligence can be solved with a reference to foreseeability of a particular type of harm. Now, questions will be resolved by asking the plaintiff was owed a duty of care by the defendant in respect of that particular type of damage or injury.
There are three important
The case that I have found to write about is the case of Shakeel “Blam” Wiggins and the New York Police Department in New York City which happened in September of 2013. This case was originally tried in the state of New York court in New York City. It was based on the fact that a NYPD cop didn’t properly fill out a search-warrant application that turned up a weapon as well as a handgun and a cocaine cache. Unfortunately, Mr. Wiggins is an accused drug dealer with a prior record and he may likely walk due to “a technicality.” Therefore, the New York City Police Department as well as the New York City police union were very upset because a dangerous person may be back on the streets due to a supple mistake.
The reasonable man-standard is used in law to determine negligence. “A jury generally decides whether a defendant has acted as a reasonable person would have acted. In making this decision, the jury generally considers the defendant’s conduct in light of what the defendant actually knows, has experienced, or has perceived” (“Standards”). In this case, the jury decided that the defendant knew about the problem but failed to act as a reasonable man, causing Hardy’s injury. GM did not intend to purposely cause Hardy harm but the company was held liable for neglecting the door latch recall.
The year is 1963, and Clarence Earl Gideon is falsely accused of a crime. Under Florida law, being charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor is a felony, and Mr. Gideon was the unfortunate victim here (Facts par 2). Like many Americans of his time, Clarence had only an eighth education (Facts par 1). He roamed in and out of prisons, which explains why he was poor (Facts par 1). Lacking the funds to pay an attorney, Clarence requested the judge to appoint him one (Facts par 2).
The test for cause in fact is whether the alleged negligence was a substantial factor in bring about the injury and without such injury the harm would not have occurred. “Substantial” means that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead the reasonable person to regard it as the
INTRODUCTION Defendant Ms. Kalani Herrera ("Ms. Herrera") respectfully request the court grants Ms. Herrera 's motion for summary judgment and dismiss the plaintiffs, Mr. And Mrs. Malone 's ("Malones") personal injury claim. The Malones have a brought a personal injury lawsuit against Ms. Herrera under the attractive nuisance doctrine on behalf of themselves and their daughter Maria Malone ("Maria"), a minor who was injured on an a peace of land art while trespassing on Ms. Herrera 's property. However, the plaintiffs have failed to establish elements that are pertinent to the claim. Landowners typically owe no duty to trespassers however, the doctrine of attractive nuisance is an exception to
The defendant’s paddleboats were defective when provided to the Geringers causing the defendants to be found negligent. The Geringers were found negligent because they chose to use paddleboats without proper life vest protection. Disposition: The court affirmed the owners of Wildhorn Ranch to have been negligent leading to the death of William and Jared Geringer.
In this case, Ray Knight’s parents (plaintiffs) are seeking liability compensation against the School District (defendants) for the alleged negligence of their son’s middle school. School officials gave Ray Knight a three day suspension for unexcused absences. Although, the School District’s policy is to give parents phone notification and written notification through the mail for student suspension, Knight’s middle school officials sent the written notice home with Knight. In an attempt to hide the information from his parents, Knight crumpled the notification and disposed of it away.
Due to the defendant’s negligence and lack of regard for safety, the court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the
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,
A Civil Action is a movie based on a true story about an epic courtroom showdown where Jan Schlichtmann, a tenacious personal-injury attorney files a lawsuit against two of the nation's largest corporations. He accuses, Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace Company for causing the deaths of children from water contamination by the illegitimate dumping of chemical wastes into natural water sources. The first issue brought up in this movie is concealing or misrepresenting of the truth also known as deceit. Deceit occurs when an individual withholds or misrepresents information by making false statements with the intent of altering another person’s position on a matter. In the movie, Jan does some personal investigations after he notices that there’s
Julian wants to sue David, the other player. In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball.
Neff Said: Mise-en-scene and Sound in Double Indemnity Film Noir is a genre filled with many interesting conventions. The films within Film Noir use narration, performance, lighting, and blocking in order to tell tales of murder, betrayal, and questionable morals.
Health Care Law: Tort Case Study Carolann Stanek University of Mary Health Care Law: Tort Case Study A sample case study reviewed substandard care that was delivered to Ms. Gardner after having sustained an accident and brought to Bay Hospital for treatment. Dr. Dick, a second-year pediatric resident, was on that day in the ED and provided care for Ms. Gadner. Dr. Moon, is the chief of staff and oversees the credentialing of all physicians at Bay Hospital.
Case Facts In November of 1988, Nicole, a 13-year-old girl consummated a murder-suicide pact with a friend in Maryland. Nicole’s counselor was made aware of her suicidal thoughts and discussed it with her. However, Nicole denied making statements about intending to commit suicide and the counselor failed to notify administration or Nicole’s parents. In March of 1989, the father of the girl and plaintiff in this case, Stephen Eisel, brought negligence charges against the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the Superintendent of Schools of Montgomery, the Sligo Middle School Principal, and Dorothy Jones, the School Counselor.
Negligence: Negligence is conduct that falls below the standards of behaviour established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm. (Gayle, 2015) The core idea of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might forcible cause harm to other people. (Fein man, M. 2011) Negligence can be defined as a failure to take reasonable care or steps to prevent loss or injury to another person.