...she and another hotel employee, Ernest Yogley, had entered it. The elevator did not move. Instead, the door reopened slightly, but the opening was not wide enough to allow the passengers to exit. With the assistance of a third employee who was outside the elevator, Yogley opened the door enough to get out. As Gordon attempted to exit, however, the door began to close, pinning her between the door and the wall of the elevator. In attempting to free herself, she was injured. Issues: First instance: Did the defendants have the negligence action on plaintiff’s injury? Did the plaintiff establish the defendants' negligence of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur? Is the plaintiff free from contributory negligence? Second instance: Did the appellee have the negligence action on plaintiff’s injury? Did the appellant establish the appellee’s negligence of res ipsa loquitur? Is appellant free from her injury？ What percentage of negligence is attributable to each party? Decision: First instance: The district court ruled that Gordon had not established directed verdicts in favor of both Westinghouse and Montgomery at...
Words: 983 - Pages: 4
...these questions in less than two pages, typed, double-spaced. 2. I will allow (and, in fact, encourage) students to answer these questions in a group of four students or fewer. If the questions are answered in a group, one paper should be submitted for the group with the group members’ names on the paper. 3. There is no need to retype the question. 4. Check your answers for grammar, spelling and punctuation since these will be considered in the grading. ASSIGNMENT ON CHAPTER FOUR Answer the following questions: “Questions and Case Problems” (page 99-100): Question 4.1 (5 points) and 4.5 (5 points). Some hints: For question 4-1, remember that there are 3 defenses to negligence (assumption of the risk, contributory negligence and comparative negligence) and each should be considered and discussed. Directions: 5. The assignment is worth 10 points in total. 6. Answer the questions thoroughly and in complete sentences. In my opinion, no student could answer these two questions in less than 1 ½ pages, double-spaced. If you submit less than this, double-spaced, I will be looking for what’s missing. If the question calls for you to “explain,” or “discuss,” then do so. Answers should be justified and explained. 7. There is no need to retype the questions. If you do retype the questions, do not consider it part of the page length requirement. 8. Check your answers for grammar, spelling and punctuation since these will be considered...
Words: 330 - Pages: 2
...been created or a warning been given to prevent people from slipping or tripping? There weren’t any warnings that the spot might be dangerous. If you tripped over or slipped on an object someone had placed or left on or in the floor or ground, was there a legitimate reason for the object to be there? Was there a good reason for the object to be there but that reason no longer exists, could the object have been removed or covered or otherwise made safe? Conclusion. The basic rule is: If one person involved in an accident was less careful than another, the less careful one must pay for at least a portion of the damages suffered by the more careful one. State Restrictions on Recovering Compensation If You Were Careless Comparative negligence is applied in three slightly different ways, depending on the state where the accident occurred. The more generous states allow you to recover compensation for your injuries in an amount based on the other person's fault no matter how great your own fault was. Most states, however, use a slightly more restrictive rule under which you can't recover anything if your own carelessness was 50% or more responsible for the accident. And a handful of tight-fisted states don't allow you to...
Words: 355 - Pages: 2
...Case Who is suing whom? What is the cause of action? What is being claimed? Who won? Urzi V. Board of Education for the Borough of North York (Icy Sidewalk Case) Parent suing the school board Fall at the schoolyard led to a injury in the knee; fell in Europe leading to a hip fracture from a weak knee Claiming recovering for damages sustained in her second fall Plaintiff aka the Parent Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd. V. Heller and Partners Ltd. (Bank case) Investor (3rd Party – Adv. Co) suing Bank Advertiser wanted to make sure that Easipower was suitable for investing in so ask Bank if they could determine if they were reliable and trustworthy for an amount of $100,000 per annum Claiming recover of the money loss when Easipower went into Liquidation ($17,000) Plaintiff aka Hedley Byrne the advertising company Dixon V. Deacon (Auditor case) Shareholder suing the auditors Dixon purchased shares off of another individual in the company known as NBS based on parts of the audited financial statements Money loss in investment of NBS Defendant aka Deacon. Case was dismissed Hagerman V. City of Niagara Falls Et Al (Hockey case) Resident suing the City At a hockey game, sitting behind the goalie, a net is up for pucks that fly over the board, during the game a puck flies over the board and over the netting used to catch the pucks. At point in time...
Words: 1648 - Pages: 7
...Discuss the fairness of the award of damages in negligence when the defences of volenti and contributory negligence are raised. Firstly when looking into the fairness of these two subjects we need to have a greater understanding, then they can be applied to the various areas of law however we are only interested in them when awarding damages. Volenti, or volenti non fit injuria which means ‘to one who volunteers, no harm is done. When volenti is applied it means the defendant is clear of all liability. Within volenti there are three requirements of the defence that are needed to be displayed which are voluntary, agreement and knowledge. Voluntary refers to the fact that the agreement must be voluntary for this defence to succeed. Agreement refers to the fact the agreement through the defendant’s action or statement must have been consented to. Finally knowledge is referring to the fact that the defendant must have had full knowledge to the extent of the risk. Next there is contributory negligence, this is where the claimant has contributed to the injuries they have suffered due to them being negligent. This is due to the fact they have ignored the obvious risks displayed. Like volenti there are certain requirements for the defence of contributory negligence however there are only two, the claimant didn’t take care in the situation...
Words: 1283 - Pages: 6
...The plaintiff, Logan, is obligated to prove her negligence claim against Defendant Rios with a preponderance of the evidence. As the supplemental commentary notes to the Franklin Supreme Court Approved Jury instructions note, it is necessary that Logan persuade a jury considering the evidence, that her proposition is more probable than not. A jury will evaluate the evidence, including witness testimony, and the weight to be given to it, and make a determination as to whether it is more probable than not that Rios’s negligence, through her employees at the store she owns, Trina’s Toys, was the direct and proximate cause of Logan’s injuries. Further, a jury will have to decide Rios’s affirmative defense of contributory negligence. There...
Words: 1806 - Pages: 8
...Now that the details of the case as well as the arguments for each side have been discussed the case must be decided. The proximate cause of the injury is the defendant’s product the Taurus. The Taurus is the proximate cause due to the foreseeability test. Proximate cause is determined by whether the injury was foreseeable Hastings for Pratt vs. Seegars fence Co. 128 N.C.App. 166. The defendant should have foreseen that the bad design of the seatbelts could lead to injury in the event of a crash. Thus said the plaintiff would sue for strict liability and negligence due to the defective engine and the defective seatbelt. The defendant’s defense of contributory negligence would be effective because despite Ford’s warning about not using booster seats the Stark’s chose to not use a booster seat. This reduces the liability on Ford Motor Co. for negligence and strict product liability. The second defense, Assumption of the risk will also help negate remedies toward the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not use a booster seat despite knowing the danger of doing so. The defendant’s defense, Assumption of the risk will barre recovery for the plaintiff for remedies related to the harm that was caused by the risk. This is because, “A plaintiff who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm arising from the negligent or reckless conduct of...
Words: 496 - Pages: 2
...Legal Memo To: Attorney John Smith, Esquire From: Paralegal Re: Westen Vs. Jane Date: March 18, 2002 This memorandum follows your recent assignment where in you requested that I contact Mr. Mark Vision, who witnessed our client Mary Jane’s accident, and determine where Mr. Vision was in association with the accident, the approximate speed of the other vehicle, the weather conditions and any other information that would be useful in either shifting liability or alleging contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff/driver. Analysis of the Interview I contacted Mr. Mark Vision on March 4, 2002. He is an African American male, very tall with a slim build. He wore business casual clothes and he seemed a little nervous, but he was very respectful and well mannered. He was very forthcoming with all of the questions he was asked in the interview. He seemed very truthful and reliable and answered every question with a matter-of- fact attitude. He remembered the entire accident very vividly. He would make a favorable witness for our case, because he feels that Ms. Jane is not guilty. Mr. Vision advised me that he was on the way to work at his part-time job Saturday March 18, 2002. The reason he did not give a statement at the time of the accident, was because he is the Manager and had to be at the company early to let the other workers in and didn’t want to keep them waiting. But Mr. Vision did give the Police his contact information. It was raining that...
Words: 894 - Pages: 4
...Introduction Negligence Negligence occurs if someone suffers harm, and the person who causes such harm does so through carelessness. For example, Mr Harley, a blind man tripped over a long-handled hammer which had been left near a hole in the pavement. The House of Lords held that the Electricity Board whose workmen had dug the hole, had failed to consider that blind people might be passers by. A reasonable man would have foreseen this and taken the necessary precautions. The Board had fallen below the standard of the reasonable man. The Court therefore awarded Mr Haley damages in negligence (Haley v London Electricity Board [1964]). Types of negligence...
Words: 2239 - Pages: 9
...the innkeeper is responsible for the reasonable care and safety of the attendees in the swimming pool, according to the Rule 10D5.81(1) of the Department of health and Rehabilitative Services. The main discussion in court could be that the innkeeper does not prevail due to its negligence per se. Therefore, Mrs. Downey should file a claim, considering that she did not contribute in any way to be injured. Moreover, one can assume that she was badly injured considering that she was hospitalized for three days. However, to be completely fair, the innkeeper should argue that the Mooney twins ‘parents also failed to closely supervise their children and that as a consequence they should share liability under the Comparative Negligence Clause. Even though the argument will have a substantive weight during the trail or mediation process, there is the fact that the twins blatantly ignore the warning sign and...
Words: 1700 - Pages: 7
...LAW OF TORTS Research Project: NEGLIGENCE AND PRESENT LEGAL SCENARIO Submitted By Shivanshu Sharma 14010224128 Division A Batch 2014-2019 Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA Symbiosis International University, PUNE In September, 2014 Under the guidance of DR. C.J RAWANDALE Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA Symbiosis International University, PUNE In September, 2014 CERTIFICATE The Project entitled “NEGLIGENCE AND PRESENT LEGAL SCENARIO” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Ethics as part of internal assessment is based on our original work carried out under the guidance of Dr.C.J Rawandale from July to September 2014. The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged. We understand that we ourselves could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on. Signature of the candidates Date: 17th September, 2014 Acknowledgement We would like to thank each and everyone who have helped us in the completion of this project knowingly or unknowingly. Firstly, we would like to extend our heartwarming thanks to our law of torts teacher, Dr.C.J Rawandale, under whose abled guidnce we were able to complete our research project. Further, we would sincerely like to thank our esteemed institution and other faculty members, without whom this project would not have seen the light of the day. Last but certainly not...
Words: 2196 - Pages: 9
...Soo Clumsy can sue Tesko under law of tort. Tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidentally which unfairly causes someone to suffer loss or harm from another party and this is lead to action to civil court. There are two ways to occur in civil liability which is either a breach of contract or a tort having been committed. Liability of tort is not undertaken voluntarily and its’ applied by the courts on the basis that certain types of conduct ensure the imposition of tortious liability. Examples of tort situations are negligence, nuisance, trespassing, defamation, occupiers’ and vicarious liabilities. In Soo’s case, emphasis is given to law of negligence. In Soo’s case, she can claim under the negligence from Tesko. Negligence always required some form of careless conduct. Based on the fact given there is an extent of careless conduct by Tesko. In order for Soo to successfully sue Tesko for her claim there are three elements that need to be established. The first element is there must be an existence of duty by Tesko, breach of that duty and the causation and that the damages are not too remote. Based on the first element, the fact related which is Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 House of Lord [1]. This case was happens on 26th August 1928, Donoghue and her friend went to a café in Glasgow and her friend brought a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The ginger beer was in a brown and opaque bottle so that the contents could not be seen...
Words: 2479 - Pages: 10
...The common examples are the failure to wear a seatbelt or voluntarily agreeing to drive with an incompetent driver. Since 1945 the conditions of this term may be found in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, which presented the apportionment of responsibilities between the parties in such cases. Specifically, the act refers to the reduction of plaintiff’s damages to such a level that the court considers being just and equitable. The statement indicated that the damages will be diminished in concordance with the claimant’s liability for the personal injury. The defense is applicable generally in negligent acts, although it can be likewise valid in nuisance, violation of statutory duty and sometimes breach of contract. Watkins J in Owen v Brimmel (1977) discusses whether the claimant can be contributorily negligent for accepting the lift from a driver, knowing that he consumed sizeable quantity of alcohol, which would lead to...
Words: 1381 - Pages: 6
...Negligence In order to advise XXX any claims he may have in torts, it is necessary to determine if such negligence exists. To sue for negligence, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who has suffered damage to establish the following four prerequisites based on the evidence: 1) A duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; 2) Breach of the duty of care by the defendant; 3) Plaintiff suffered damage resulting from the breach; and 4) The damage suffered was a foreseeable consequence of the breach that the connection between the damage and the breach were not too remote. 1) The first question of fact is “Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?” Under the Common Law: Donoghue v Stevenson Under the common law, whether or not the defendant owed to the plaintiff a duty of care is based on the neighbour principle established in the precedent case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], which affirms that a sufficiently close relationship (neighbour relationship) between the parties can give rise to a duty of care. According to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], neighbour refers to the persons who are so closely and directly affected by one’s act that one ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when directing mind to the acts or omissions. In other words, a duty of care arises when persons in a reasonable contemplation are ought to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions...
Words: 1229 - Pages: 5
...In order to prove in court that a tort was done because of negligence, there are several defenses to plead for negligence. Common defenses toward negligence are contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk. To prove in court contributory negligence, the tortfeasor (person who commits a tort) has to show sufficient evidence, in order to prove that the victim contributed to his or her damage or injury. Also the tortfeasor can bring up evidence to demonstrate that the plaintiff was aware and consciously knew what the level of risk was and took the contingency of getting injured or contributed to his or her damages by assumption of risk. Additionally, if a tortfeasor can justify that the victim of the tort was rash or careless by comparative negligence, the tortfeasor can put up a good defense and reduce his or her punishment. A situation that is often common is when careless workers do their job imprudently as a result of hate toward their job or their life. An example where negligence can be brought up is if a worker sweeps the floor and does not bring out a caution sign. A few moments later a customer walks in and falls and breaks his neck, not only is the owner to fault but because of the workers irresponsibility a person is harmed. If the case was to be sent to court and enough...
Words: 823 - Pages: 4
