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.
Negligence
Generally, In order to sustain a cause of action for negligence, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care, that the defendant breached that duty of care by his negligent commission of an action (or by his negligent omission of action), and that the defendant's breach of that duty of care was the proximate cause of tangible harm to the plaintiff (Dobbs, 2001).
In addition, and depending on the particular statutes in the state where the events occurred, the plaintiff may also have to establish that his own negligence was less than that of the defendant in order to recover at all. In other states, the negligence of the plaintiff will not necessarily preclude his recovery, but any award may be reduced by whatever percentage he is deemed responsible for his damages by virtue of his own contributory negligence.
Classes of Harm and Persons:
In negligence causes of action to recover damages for negligence...
Likewise, local ordinances within many jurisdictions require that landlords provide safety banisters and appropriate lighting within common areas of multiple dwelling units, for the safety of residents. Where a low-flying aircraft crashes into a rooftop as a result of a negligent landlord's failure to replace a burnt out warning light, his negligence could give rise to numerous causes of actions based in negligence, because the harm that ensued was precisely within the class of harms…
REFERENCES
Dobbs, Dan, B. (2001) Torts and Compensation: Personal Accountability and Social Responsibility for Injury. St. Paul: West Group
Sanders's injury was more as a result of the "hard falls" of softball, rather than any sort of "rough treatment" that occurred as a result of improper supervision. The "rough treatment" category of head-butting football players can easily be distinguished from the more passive interaction between sliding ankle and first base. When the facts of a case clearly demonstrate improper supervision of "rough treatment" athletic activity, the courts have had
Dangerfield and Associate Entities Upon examining this case, it's clear that the claims made by Hartman are completely legitimate. The claims made by Mitchell are somewhat legitimate. This paper will first examine the basis of the lawsuit waged by Hartman, as the bulk of the valid accusations made are made by this particular plaintiff. The crux of Hartman's lawsuit is based on the claim that Dangerfield was liable for the negligence
Kevin Golden v. Town of Collierville 06a0062n.06; 167 Fed. Appx. 474; 2006 U.S. App. Plaintiff firefighter appealed a decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, a town, its administrator, a fire chief, and an assistant fire chief, on his procedural due process and equal protection claims under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983. The district court also dismissed the
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
In addition to reckless and intentional action that results in injury, amateur coaching decisions, recommendations, and strategies can lead to injuries and can be considered elements of avoidable risk, constituting a breach of duty based on the expectations of the participants (Fitzgerald 2005). Breach can also occur, of course, through the intentional or reckless behavior of sports participants that shows a disregard of the basic rules and expectations of
More times than not, a patient will argue that he did not understand what the physician stated to him; even amidst documented proof the medical professional and the patient did engage in an informed conversation. "The fact that a meeting took place does not necessarily mean that there was a meeting of the minds" (Informed consent…, 2010, ¶ 5). This issue leads some health care providers to assert that