Question 1
Negligence is a scenario where one fails to act with the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would have acted in a similar situation. It can arise out of actions or omissions where some duty to act is owed. In a negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty off care, the defendant breached that duty, and as a result, the plaintiff suffered a loss.
In this case, Maxrun failed to take reasonable care of Gunter’s hard disk. Maxrun owed Gunter a duty to keep track of the replaced hard disk and return the hard disk to Gunter. The standard of care required in this case is that of a reasonable person. The repair department was expected to take reasonable care to ensure that the right hard disk was returned to Gunter. The requirements for the standard of care are dependent on the circumstance, but in THEL HAFT v LONE PINE HOTEL, it was decided that statutes can be used to establish a standard of care.
Gunter was the foreseeable plaintiff as he was likely to be affected by the fault of the Maxrun. Maxrun owes a duty to Gunter as it would foresee that he would suffer a loss as a result of the misplaced hard disk. Because Maxrun …show more content…
Contributory negligence is a defense that applies when the plaintiff contributed to the harm or loss. The presumption is that the plaintiff has a duty to act in a reasonable manner and if he fails to act in this manner, he may be held liable for the damage or loss that occurs even if another person was responsible. In comparative negligence, the negligence of each party is weighed when determining the damages. This approach is a way to reduce the unfair results of the contributory negligence approach. In this case, Maxrun PC can argue that Gunter was partially to blame for the loss of data because he did not back up the data on the hard
Negligence is a scenario where one fails to act with the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would have acted in a similar situation. It can arise out of actions or omissions where some duty to act is owed. In a negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him a duty off care, the defendant breached that duty, and as a result, the plaintiff suffered a loss.
In this case, Maxrun failed to take reasonable care of Gunter’s hard disk. Maxrun owed Gunter a duty to keep track of the replaced hard disk and return the hard disk to Gunter. The standard of care required in this case is that of a reasonable person. The repair department was expected to take reasonable care to ensure that the right hard disk was returned to Gunter. The requirements for the standard of care are dependent on the circumstance, but in THEL HAFT v LONE PINE HOTEL, it was decided that statutes can be used to establish a standard of care.
Gunter was the foreseeable plaintiff as he was likely to be affected by the fault of the Maxrun. Maxrun owes a duty to Gunter as it would foresee that he would suffer a loss as a result of the misplaced hard disk. Because Maxrun …show more content…
Contributory negligence is a defense that applies when the plaintiff contributed to the harm or loss. The presumption is that the plaintiff has a duty to act in a reasonable manner and if he fails to act in this manner, he may be held liable for the damage or loss that occurs even if another person was responsible. In comparative negligence, the negligence of each party is weighed when determining the damages. This approach is a way to reduce the unfair results of the contributory negligence approach. In this case, Maxrun PC can argue that Gunter was partially to blame for the loss of data because he did not back up the data on the hard