Cardware vs Plaintiff Memo

Cardware The content below is a memo report for a case study of a corporation named CARDWARE. A woman named MYRA is about to initiate a lawsuit against this company due to the injury she sustained in the course of a carpeting event for the company. The following content represents a legal report to Chief Executive of CARDWARE as regards the right step to take in the suit filed by MYRA. Candie Cardigan, CEO CARDWARE Inc.

From: AliceRe: Requirements for Negligence and possible Defenses To Myra's Claims Hi Candice, it is Ashley. I have assembled credible defenses with which we would be able to close down Myra's case that resulted from the recent carpet walk incident (Writer Thoughts). Please go through the content and give me feedback. I'm optimistic that we will have a foolproof case. Requirements A defendant is held accountable for negligence when he or she breaches the responsibility owed by the plaintiff.

Such responsibility is breached by the defendant if the defendant fails to implement a logical amount of care in carrying out that responsibility. Most outcomes from cases of negligence are determined by whether the plaintiff is owed any responsibility by the defendant. Such responsibility comes up if the law identifies any kind of relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and this relation is the reason why the defendant is under obligation to behave in a certain way to the plaintiff.

It is the duty of a judge, and not the jury, to determine whether the plaintiff is owed any responsibility of care by the defendant. In a situation where a sensible person recognizes the existence of a responsibility under a given set of conditions, that court will usually discover that such a responsibility is actually in existence. Under conventional regulations in cases of negligence, it is important for the plaintiff to produce the evidence of how the defendant's actions caused the plaintiff's injury.

This is what is known as the but-for causation. Simply put, the plaintiff would not have sustained the injury in the absence of the defendant's actions. Immediate cause relates to the extent of the responsibility of the defendant in a case of negligence. A defendant in any case of negligence can only be held responsible for the injuries the defendant's actions could have foreseen and prevented.

In a situation where the injury is beyond what the defendant's actions could have foreseen, the plaintiff cannot produce evidence that the immediate cause of his or her injury is as a result of the actions of the defendant. In a case of negligence, the plaintiff must give evidence to a lawfully identified harm, mostly in the shape of a bodily injury to an individual or damage to property. Defense Mechanism That Can Be Utilized One of the most commonly utilized negligence defenses is contributory negligence.

The defendant tries to refuse the plaintiff's right to act by holding on to the claim that the negligence of the plaintiff was what played the major role in the plaintiff's injuries. Under the concept of contributory negligence, both the plaintiff and the defendant are guilty of negligence, but no damages are awarded to the plaintiff. In some cases where both parties are found guilty of a certain degree of negligence, liability is solely placed on the plaintiff under contributory negligence (Negligence Defenses).

This is mostly seen as unjust and is the main reason why there has been an emergence of comparative negligence which examines the level of faults on the parts of the two parties, as a way of determining the person responsible for the injury sustained by the plaintiff. The allotment of damages, where each of the two parties takes responsibility for a part of the damages, has separated into three.