Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
A person may be able to file action against more than one defendant by establishing that the behaviors of each were proximate causes of their damage, even if the defendants' negligent behavior was dissimilar (Larson, 2003).
According to the law, a proximate cause is an act sufficiently associated with the legally identifiable harm to include not just the actual physical and sequential cause, but also the legal cause of a given harm. The definite cause is the first point of proximate cause, and that means but for the action, the effect would not have happened. The act bringing about injury must have been the but for cause in addition to the end result has to be reasonably foreseeable to the actor at the time they acted. Proximate cause attaches this element of reasonable foreseeability to the but for test in order to conclude whether it would be fair to hold a person responsible for the full costs of the resulting injury. Cause-in-fact brings about the age old question of whether the defendant's behavior something that was a cause of the plaintiff's harm. The quality of the defendant's behavior has no influence on this question. A person's behavior is the cause-in-fact of someone's harm if it can be said that but for the actor's behavior...
Special damages are given for losses where the financial brunt is quantifiable and can be detailed, such as medical expenses or loss of income. General damages are losses that cannot be identified with certainty or cannot in fact be rewarded with money, such as loss of association or pain and suffering. Punitive damages are given in order to deter the tortfeasor from committing the behavior again (Legal Liability and Negligence, 2008).
References
Larson, Aaron. (2003). Negligence and Tort Law. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from Expert Law
Web site: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/negligence.html
Legal Liability and Negligence. (2008). Retrieved October 10, 2010, from Web site:
http://thismatter.com/money/insurance/legal-liability.htm
http://www.quizlaw.com/personal_injury_law/what_is_a_negligent_tort.php
Most importantly, these are the harm to reputation and false facts. Two subchapters are allocated to each of these aspects, with the chapter concluding with the description of different defenses and damages and other remedies. Chapter 9 discusses the issue of the wrongful invasion of privacy. Several potential cases of invasion of privacy are introduced, such as the public disclosure of private facts, the appropriation of the plaintiff's name or
Australian Tort Law on Wilkinson v Downton Talk about whether or not the trigger of action in Wilkinson v Downton provides a viable remedy to victims of intentionally inflicted psychiatric harm in Australia these days. The Wilkinson v Downton judgment created a considerable frame of jurisprudence not only in England, but additionally within America, as well, dealing with claims relating to "outrageous as well as extreme conduct deliberately or perhaps recklessly leading
Employee Privacy Torts Issues relating to employee privacy have been at the forefront of businesses for many years. This has been fuelled by the dynamic workplace which changes constantly and also by employees and employers being more litigation-conscious. Technology has also spurred on employee privacy issues with e-mail and the internet being related to heightened concerns about vulnerability of employers to litigation. Many employers have thus exacerbated their concerns relating to
TORT LAW Tort Law: Liebeck v. McDonald�sStep 1For this discussion, I elected to focus on the Liebeck v. McDonald�s (1994) case. Sometimes in 1992, Liebeck bought coffee from McDonald�s which she ended up spilling on her lap � causing third degree burns on her thighs as well as genital area. She later on filed a suit accusing the fast-food and restaurant chain of negligence in the United States District Court
Fault: An Alternative to the Current Tort-Based System in England and Wales The United Kingdom statistics regarding claims THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM OBSTACLES TO DUE PROCESS THE CASE FOR REFORM THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THE RISING COST OF LITIGATION LORD WOOLF'S REFORMS MORE COST CONTROLS THE UNITED STATES PAUL'S PULLOUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TORT REFORM IN AMERICA FLEEING PHYSICIANS STATISTICS FOR ERROR, INJURY AND DEATH THE CALL FOR REFORM IN 2003: A FAMILIAR REFRAIN THE UNITED STATES SITUATION, IN SUMMARY NEW ZEALAND CASE STUDIES THE SWEDISH SCHEME COMPARISON: WHICH SYSTEM IS
This provision is based on the rationale that general damages do not represent financial loss to the injured person. A number of changes have also been made to the law in respect to assessment of damages for past and future economic loss. 4. The maximum amount of damages for economic loss due to loss of earnings or the deprivation or impairment of earning capacity is fixed at a rate of