Negligence

Case One From my reading of this case I am of the opinion that Matt has a genuine case against the accused. I believe that Matt should take legal action against his competitor for misleading advertising. The accused has broken the Consumers Protection Act (2007). Matt has a valid case because it is affecting his business and if this problem persists Matt could possibly lose his business. Outline of legal issues • The advertisement of lower priced products compared to those which are in Matt’s…

INTRODUCTION • Origin of the word Tort and its meaning: The word tort is derived from Latin word ‘tortum’, which means ‘to twist’. It basically refers to a conduct which is not upright or lawful. In English, the term tort is refers to a ‘wrong’. Thus, the branch of law which deals with ‘torts’, consists of wrongful act wherein the wrongdoer violates some of the legal rights vested in another person. We ought to remember that the law imposes a duty to respect the legal right vested in the…

On July 13th, 2015, I was pulled over and given a ticket for a serious speeding violation, going 93mph in a 65mph zone. Not only was this against the law, but it was unnecessary, and reduced the safety of myself and those around me. I made a stupid mistake by speeding that day, and have regretted it ever since. When I saw the police lights behind me, I knew I had messed up. I also knew I was the only one to blame. There was no point in fighting a ticket or declaring a reason for my speed. After…

Facts: In 2010, Adwoa Gyabaah was hit by a by a bus owned by Rivlab Transportation Corporation. After the accident, Gyabaah hired; Jeffrey Aronsky as her attorney to represent her in court. They would be in negotiations with Rivlab, their insurance company: National Casualty Company, and their attorneys. Early on, Gyabaah agreed to pay Aronsky a contingency fee of one-third the of her finalized recovery. In late August, 2010 Aronsky presented the plaintiffs personal injury action on their behalf…

This question focuses heavily on ‘reasonable foreseeability’. Reasonable foreseeability is a “mechanism which limits the type of plaintiffs, risks or damages which the defendant is liable for ”. For an event to be foreseeable, the claimant, and the kind of injury that was caused, must be foreseeable. The claimant, Daryl, must be in the area that danger is created by the defendant's, Rick, carelessness and the injury must be a type that is likely to occur in the circumstances. To be able to prove…

The only acts alleged by Dr. Stout are purported breaches of contract. Further, Dr. Stout has failed to allege any “substantial aggravating circumstances,” which is necessary to transform a breach of contract claim into an UDTPA claim. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Court to dismiss Dr. Stout’s sixth counterclaim against the Practice. vi. Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Dr. Stout’s final claim against the Practice, which is plead in the alternative, seeks recovery of damages,…

Mr. Johnson, You asked me to brief the People v. SM case in preparation for your meeting with our client. In SM, the defendant, who has a reputation for being a peaceful and law-abiding citizen shot four boys who were older and more athletic than him all of whom, were in the wrestling and football team. The defendant was outnumbered four to one. At no time did the defendant stand his ground or advance to the other boys. Rather, he tried to run away and called for onlookers to get help. The…

Re: Duty of Care The plaintiff suffered a serious and incurable herpes-like virus as a result of SA Fisheries not shutting down the abalone farm on the 11th of January. In establishing that the defendant owed a duty of care, the plaintiff must prove, • On the balance of probabilities that it is, • Reasonable to impose such a duty upon harm caused, • By the criminal conduct of a third party. Reasonable Foreseeability To impose a duty, it must first be asked whether it was not farfetched or…

The perceived problem with section 323 (1) (a) and (c) is the common law only acknowledged one basis of liability. Under the first basis, a person must have knowledge of the essential facts of the offence and intentionally aiding and abetting, counseling and procuring the offence. The new section 323 (1) (b) and (c) now covers the recklessness of the person. They was ambiguity found in the wording of section 323 (2) with the word encourage. With the new law, the person must have intended to…

QUESTION 1 (4 marks) Briefly identify and explain the main communication weakness, in the way that defence counsel has sought to test the credibility of the evidence given by this witness, about how the accused reacted to the behaviour of the complainant. The main communication weakness in segment one is gratuitous concurrence. The first contribution leading to gratuitous concurrence can be drawn from the context of the cross-examination. The defence counsel a non-indigenous man is a…