It arises, when the plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care, in order to safeguard his property or person. As per the law, every individual is expected to protect himself, under every circumstance and at…
Let us write or edit the essay on your topic
"The English Law on defences to a claim in negligence is a confused muddle. Only contributory negligence makes any coherent sense at all"
with a personal 20% discount.
Download file to see previous pages...
This is patently inequitable, and under such circumstances the courts make serious efforts to discount the presence of contributory negligence (Murdoch, 2002). These judicial gymnastics, at times seem to defy the import of the evidence presented in the case.
These observations are clearly brought out in the case of Astley v Austrust Ltd. In this case, a trustee company sued a firm of solicitors for breach of contract and for providing negligent advice. The trial court judge discerned contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and ruled that the responsibility for the loss was to be shared equally by the plaintiff and defendant (Astley v Austrust Ltd, 1999).
This decision was set aside by the Full Court in South Australia, which held that there was no contributory negligence. This court went on to rule that contributory negligence could not arise, in instances where the loss to the plaintiff was of the very nature that it was the duty of the defendant to prevent, by providing appropriate professional advice (Astley v Austrust Ltd, 1999).
However, in the High Court, it was held that apportionment legislation was inapplicable to contributory negligence of the plaintiff; if the defendant had not protected the plaintiff from such damage. Thus, contributory negligence can be attributed to a plaintiff, in instances where the principal duty of the defendant is to prevent such damage to the plaintiff (Astley v Austrust Ltd, 1999).
In addition to being able to predict damage and the closeness of the parties; it should be equitable and reasonable to enforce a duty of care. There have been several cases, where the courts have ruled that the duty of care, inherent in psychiatric injury that was caused on account of negligence, was present due to policy considerations (Victim of self – inflicted injuries owes no duty of care, 2000).
In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, the
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
It does not cover injury that results from intentional harm. The core idea is that people should take reasonable precautions to prevent foreseeable harm. A cause of action arising from negligence can result in a damages award. This harm can be to persons in terms of physical and mental injury, property, personal relationships and financial status.
The tort of negligence is a tort that awards damages for a breach of duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff resulting in damage to the plaintiff undesired by the defendant (Keenan, 2007. P. 265). The tort of negligence was created in the House of Lords in 1932.
Negligence Name Course Instructor Institution Date Negligence The case “Failure to Restrain Caused Patient Fall” is selected for analysis and determination whether there was medical negligence or not and the events leading to the legal litigation by the patient.
Therefore, each of these elements must be discussed. The element of a negligence claim is duty – that is, that the person, the tortfeasor, must have some sort of duty towards the victim of the tort. 2 English law traditionally stated that there must be some sort of privity between the parties for there to be a duty not to harm, which means that the two parties must have had some sort of relationship with one another.3 This changed with the case of Donoghue v.
The compensation is meant to put them in the position they were before the case of negligence occurred. Kelly, Hayward, Hammer and Hendy (2011) note that before a plaintiff can sue a person for damages related to negligence, there are elements that have to be proved before a court of law by the plaintiff.
These signs persist despite the tremendous efforts of nursing educators, trainers and campaigners to inform practicing and student nurses about their personal, legal and professional responsibilities and limitations (Phillips et al., 2004). Quite apparent in these campaigns, education, training is the distinction among malpractice, negligence, and gross negligence.
However there have been policy grounds which have been used as a basis of decision by the courts.
The structure of negligence is based on flexibility, but as it has been seen that the evolution of the tort was not quite favoured by the courts and so in recent years there have been restrictions placed on its scope.
In investigating the incident you, as Mary's attorney, obtain the personnel file of ABC relative to the manager who raped Mary. In reviewing this file you find that ABC hired the manager Rob without any kind of background check being performed. In addition, from questioning a high level manager at ABC, you determine that ABC Properties, Inc.
According to the study three conditions have to be fulfilled. They are, first, there must be a duty of care on the defendant. The defendant must have violated this duty to take care and third, the claimant must have suffered damage from breach of duty to take care by the defendant. There is always a duty of care between patients and doctors.
The protection can be in the form of court orders to the defendant to refrain from carrying out offensive acts or omissions, or the plaintiff being awarded a prescribed amount of money when a protected interest is infringed. The damage or harm must be the result
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic The English Law on defences to a claim in negligence is a confused muddle. Only contributory negligence makes any coherent sense at all for FREE!