Case 2: Tort of negligence .
From Elisabeth ‘s case , Elisabth arm was infected after the accident, but the Doctor decided to not treat it with antibiotics immediately so after a bit, Elizabeth area is now partially paralyzed.
From this data we found that Elizabeth case is about a Tort of negligence.
• A tort is a civil wrong for which a remedy, usually compensation, is available to the wronged person in the civil courts. In the Law of Torts, duties are owed to persons in various circumstances, and liability for negligent or wrongful actions is imposed by law.
• In some situations, a person can be held liable for torts committed by another person. This liability is called ‘vicarious liability’ and is particularly important in the business …show more content…
(explication)
The second element of the tort of negligence is:” the Breach of duty”
Breach of the duty:the breach of the duty happens when a company or person have a duty of care to a person or employee, but they did not take the responsibility as they supposed, to carry it out, or they did not act as an ordinary person under the circumstances, thus in the eyes of the law they broke the duty of care. (Rotlaw.com, 2015).
The standard of care: Is the unique degree of destruction and caution required of a person who is under the duty of care.
In some professions and industries,the standard of care is known by the standard that would be practiced by the reasonably prudent manufacturer of a product, or prudent professional in that line work.
The standards of care are important because is make us know specifically and usually the level of negligence in each case, and then take the valid action.
In every field there is a descriptive standard of care taken, for example, in the business field (world), is described as Due diligence or performing a channel …show more content…
As a rule a straightforward utilization of the 'however for' test will resolve the subject of causation in tort law. Ie 'yet for' the respondent's activities, would the inquirer have endured the misfortune? In the event that yes, the litigant is not subject. On the off chance that no, the litigant is at risk. Causation may be risky where there exists more than one conceivable bring about. Different plans have advanced to facilitate the weight of demonstrating causation in such
From Elisabeth ‘s case , Elisabth arm was infected after the accident, but the Doctor decided to not treat it with antibiotics immediately so after a bit, Elizabeth area is now partially paralyzed.
From this data we found that Elizabeth case is about a Tort of negligence.
• A tort is a civil wrong for which a remedy, usually compensation, is available to the wronged person in the civil courts. In the Law of Torts, duties are owed to persons in various circumstances, and liability for negligent or wrongful actions is imposed by law.
• In some situations, a person can be held liable for torts committed by another person. This liability is called ‘vicarious liability’ and is particularly important in the business …show more content…
(explication)
The second element of the tort of negligence is:” the Breach of duty”
Breach of the duty:the breach of the duty happens when a company or person have a duty of care to a person or employee, but they did not take the responsibility as they supposed, to carry it out, or they did not act as an ordinary person under the circumstances, thus in the eyes of the law they broke the duty of care. (Rotlaw.com, 2015).
The standard of care: Is the unique degree of destruction and caution required of a person who is under the duty of care.
In some professions and industries,the standard of care is known by the standard that would be practiced by the reasonably prudent manufacturer of a product, or prudent professional in that line work.
The standards of care are important because is make us know specifically and usually the level of negligence in each case, and then take the valid action.
In every field there is a descriptive standard of care taken, for example, in the business field (world), is described as Due diligence or performing a channel …show more content…
As a rule a straightforward utilization of the 'however for' test will resolve the subject of causation in tort law. Ie 'yet for' the respondent's activities, would the inquirer have endured the misfortune? In the event that yes, the litigant is not subject. On the off chance that no, the litigant is at risk. Causation may be risky where there exists more than one conceivable bring about. Different plans have advanced to facilitate the weight of demonstrating causation in such