|
Negligent
Negligence ( Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a negligent act or failure to act. The concept of negligence is linked to the obligation of individuals to exercise reasonable care in their actions and to consider foreseeable harm that their conduct might cause to other people or property. The elements of a negligence claim include the duty to act or refrain from action, breach of that duty, actual and proximate cause of harm, and damages. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. Elements of negligence claims To successfully pursue a claim of negligence through a lawsuit, a plaintiff must establish the " elements" of negli ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tort
A tort is a civil wrong, other than breach of contract, that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictio ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Stevenson
''Donoghue v Stevenson'' [1932] AC 562 was a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to ''Donoghue v Steven ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Grant V Australian Knitting Mills
''Grant v Australian Knitting Mills''; . is a landmark case in consumer and negligence law from 1935, holding that where a manufacturer knows that a consumer may be injured if the manufacturer does not take reasonable care, the manufacturer owes a duty to the consumer to take that reasonable care. It continues to be cited as an authority in legal cases, and used as an example for students studying law. Background In the 19th century, an action for negligence was only available if there was a particular relationship between the injured person and the person said to be negligent. The most common founding of the relationship was that of contract, but only where both people were party to the same contract, referred to as privity of contract. (2015) 41 Monash University Law Review 716. Thus in ''Winterbottom v Wright'', Winterbottom had a contract with the Postmaster-General to drive a mail coach, while Wright had a contract with the Postmaster-General to maintain the mail coach. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Delict
Delict (from Latin ''dēlictum'', past participle of ''dēlinquere'' ‘to be at fault, offend’) is a term in civil and mixed law jurisdictions whose exact meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but is always centered on the notion of wrongful conduct. In Scots and Roman Dutch law, it always refers to a tort, which can be defined as a civil wrong consisting of an intentional or negligent breach of duty of care that inflicts loss or harm and which triggers legal liability for the wrongdoer. Other civil wrongs include breach of contract and breach of trust. Liability is imposed on the basis of moral responsibility, i.e. a duty of care or to act, and fault (''culpa'') is the main element of liability. The term is similarly used in a handful of other English-speaking jurisdictions which derive their private law from French or Spanish law, such as Louisiana and the Philippines, but ''tort'' is the equivalent legal term used in common law jurisdictions and in general disc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Roe V Minister Of Health
''Roe v Minister of Health'' 9542 All ER 131 is an English tort law decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which has had a significant influence on the common law throughout the common law world. Facts Roe and Woolley underwent surgery on 13 October 1947 at the Chesterfield Hospital. It was managed under the general supervision of the Minister of Health. Before entering the operating theatre, an anaesthetic consisting of Nupercaine was administered by means of a lumbar puncture. The spinal anaesthetics had been given by Dr.Malcolm Graham. At that time, it was common practice to store such anaesthetic in glass ampoules immersed in a phenol solution to reduce the risk of infection. Unknown to the staff, the glass had a number of micro-cracks which were invisible to the eye but which allowed the phenol to penetrate. When used, the phenol-contaminated anaesthetic caused permanent paraplegia. A later analysis suggests that the most probable cause of the paralyses was a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Law Of Contract
A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more parties. A contract typically involves consent to transfer of goods, services, money, or promise to transfer any of those at a future date. The activities and intentions of the parties entering into a contract may be referred to as contracting. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or equitable remedies such as specific performance or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty. Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured. Like other areas of private law, contract law varies between jurisdictions. In general, contract law is exercised and governed either under common law jurisdictions, civil law jurisdictions, or mixed-law jurisdictions that combine elem ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Duty Of Care
In Tort, tort law, a duty of care is a legal Law of obligations, obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of care, standard of Reasonable person, reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must Cause of action, be able to show a duty of care imposed by law that the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed ''by operation of law'' between individuals who have no ''current'' direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise) but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law). Duty of care may be considered a formalisation of the social contract, the established and implicit responsibilities held by individuals/entities towards others within society. It ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fault (legal)
Fault, as a legal term, refers to legal blameworthiness and responsibility in each area of law. It refers to both the ''actus reus'' and the mental state of the defendant. The basic principle is that a defendant should be able to contemplate the harm that his actions may cause, and therefore should aim to avoid such actions. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault, in some there is no need to prove fault, but the absence of it. In criminal law, the ''mens rea'' is used to decide if the defendant has criminal intent when he commits the act and, if so, he is therefore liable for the crime. However, this is not necessary for strict liability offences, where no particular state of mind is required to satisfy the burden of proof. ''Actus reus'' element Most requirements for a successful ''actus reus'' require a voluntary act, or omission, for evidence of fault. There is also a requirement for a clear causation, there is no liability or fault if the defendant w ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Informed Consent
Informed consent is an applied ethics principle that a person must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about accepting risk. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their Right to refuse medical treatment, right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient's consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research, to disclose a person's medical information, or to participate in high risk sporting and recreational activities. Within the United States, definitions of informed consent vary, and the standard required is generally determined by the state. As of 2016, nearly half of the states adopted a reasonable patient standard, in which the informed consent process is viewed from the patient's perspective. These standards ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Gross Negligence
Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the injury or loss. Negligence is the opposite of diligence, or being careful. The standard of ordinary negligence is what conduct deviates from that of a "reasonable person". By extension, if somebody has been grossly negligent, that means they have fallen so far below the ordinary standard of care that one can expect, to warrant the label of being "gross". Gross negligence may thus be described as reflecting "the want of even slight or scant care", falling below the level of care that even a careless person would be expected to follow. While some jurisdictions equate the culpability of gross negligence with that of recklessness, most differentiate it from simpl ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Element (criminal Law)
In most common law jurisdictions, an element of a crime is one of a set of facts that must all be proven to convict a defendant of a crime. Before a court finds a defendant Verdict, guilty of a criminal offense, the prosecution must present evidence that, even when opposed by any evidence the defense may choose, is credible and sufficient to prove Legal burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the particular crime charged. The component parts that make up any particular crime vary now depending on the crime. The basic components of an offense are listed below; generally, each element of an offense falls into one or another of these categories. At common law, conduct could not be considered criminal unless a defendant possessed some level of intentioneither purpose, knowledge, or recklessnesswith regard to both the nature of his alleged conduct and the existence of the factual circumstances under which the law considered that conduct c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Committee Of The Privy Council
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is the highest court of appeal for the Crown Dependencies, the British Overseas Territories, some Commonwealth countries and a few institutions in the United Kingdom. Established on 14 August 1833 to hear appeals formerly heard by the King-in-Council, the Privy Council formerly acted as the court of last resort for the entire British Empire, except for the United Kingdom itself.P. A. Howell, ''The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1833–1876: Its Origins, Structure, and Development'', Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1979 Formally a statutory committee of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, the Judicial Committee consists of senior judges who are Privy Councillors; they are predominantly justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom and senior judges from the Commonwealth of Nations. Although it is often simply referred to as the "Privy Council", the Judicial Committee is only one constitu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
