Reasonable person

plaintiff’s injury. Duty Duty is the legal obligation required of an individual to act as a reasonable prudent person under similar circumstances. Drivers are required to act with reasonable care when encountering other vehicles and pedestrians. Tommy was the driver of the vehicle and Susie was a pedestrian. Therefore, Tommy owed a duty of care to Susie. Breach The failure to act as a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. Tommy’s distraction caused him to run a red light,…

The Case of Negligent Tort On April 23, 2015, the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced the recall on Roberta Roller Rabbit Children’s Pajama Sets due to a violation associated with the required Federal Flammability Standards. The Recall number is 15-122, according to the Consumer Product Safety Division the product does not meet the Flammable Fabrics Act, “The children’s pajama sets fail to meet federal flammability standards for children’s sleepwear.”(www.cpsc.gov 2015). The Consumer…

If she looked at the muffin before she bit into it, it’s reasonable to suggest that without squeezing or biting into the muffin, inspection alone would not detect anything out of the ordinary. Based on those facts, it does not suggest that Bob’s could have failed to live up to the standard owed. Therefore, Bob did…

Negligence occurs if someone fails to take reasonable care to prevent loss, damage or injury to others whom they could reasonably have foreseen might be injured if that care was not taken. When accidents happen those usually involved want to believe that a negligence action has occurred and that it was due to the fault of someone else instead of believing it to be accidental. Negligence is a part of tort law, which consists of three essentials that need to be proven by the plaintiff in order to…

Q2. One of the leading cases on the duty of care in tort is Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman [1990]. In an essay of not more than 1,000 words, explain the three parts of the Caparo test. In this landmark case on establishing the duty of care, Lord Bridge enunciated a three-part or fold test for establishing the existence of a duty of care between a plaintiff and a defendant. This test has become known as the “Kaparo test”. In this test, for a claim by the claimant against the defendant for…

Michelle the defendant owe the plaintiff Rebecca duty of care under law of tort when Michelle offered Rebecca a ride home when she was drunk. Duty of care is referred to the legal responsibility which is compulsory to any individual that requires the reasonable care when performing any act that could direct or indirectly harm others. An essential element of duty of care is foreseeability. Rule 1 In relation to this, the rule of negligent is, the defendant owes duty of care not to harm the…

whilst civil proceedings to ensure justice is served and relief is provided to people who suffer from the harmful and wrong full act of others. A plaintiff can be defined as the person who sustains injury or is distressed about fiscal damage as the result of tortious conduct On the other hand a defendant is the person who is held for causing the injury and sustains liability for the damage caused. In the above case the Plaintiff is Boris Chemicals and Brian, and the Defendant here in the case…

there had not been any doubt the risk of injury to any person who would have dive from the ledge was foreseeable with reason. This decision was considered appropriate on the basis of the decision made in the previous case of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980), according to which a risk may constitute a foreseeable risk even though it is unlikely to occur. Even in the circumstances, when it was not safe to dive in the water at the Basin, a person still might dive including the children and…

seems to be very reasonable. For the unconscious of plaintiff, it largely because of Jim was hitting the ground with his upper part of body. The upper part of body is very weak and easy to get injured, especially the back. The probability is pretty high when a human’s upper back heavily crushed on the floor and ending up with an unconscious. In conclusion, the defendant needs to be punished financially, because defendant did cause the harm. The result of defendant’s action is reasonable and…

Negligence tort occurs when one fails to demonstrate the kind of care a prudent and reasonable person would take under the identical circumstances and injury was birthed from the act or the absence of it. In order to justify that the defendant was negligent and therefore liable for one’s injuries, all 5 elements of tort ought to be satisfied. The 5 elements are: Duty, Breach of Duty, Cause in Fact, Proximate Cause and damages Jane v Luke Since Jane has suffered injuries, she in immediately…