The Pros And Cons Of Negligence Law

Negligence is part of tort law and deals with hardships between individuals where one party has suffered as a result of something the other party did or did not do. The purpose of negligence is to receive compensation for the injuries sustained. (Newnham, 2000). Teachers are relied upon to prepare lesson plans, teach classes and grade student’s work. Encouraging students and acting as teacher–advisors for students. Maintaining discipline in the classroom. (What are the responsibilities of teachers?, 2016).

Envision a teenage girl fifteen years of age rushed into an emergency room in critical condition after a car accident. Having lost extensive level of blood, the surgeon is incapable of performing a blood transfusion due to negligent parents. Ultimately the doctors do consent to the transfusion, but only after the girl has experienced substantial organ failure. These instances of parental negligence and adolescent endangerment occur at distressing rates despite adolescents composing a substantial portion of American population. Adolescents warrant the right to medical autonomy as they posses the mental ability to do so, are in contact with startling levels of parental abuse, and their rate of disease.

In this manner contributory carelessness works as a halfway barrier. At first example in Pitts v Hunt [1990] 3 All ER 344 (Case rundown) the court utilized this segment to find that the Claimant was 100% contributory careless. On the other hand, this was held to be unreasonable and conflicting with the Act's wording which requires the harm to be mostly the shortcoming of both

Negligence itself is the simple rule that one is responsible for other and themselves, wellbeing. This is essentially a legal obligation to care for themselves and their neighbours. Within negligence there are three main factors taken into consideration, and they are as following; “the defendant owed them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, the plaintiff suffered harm as a results of the breach” (Vickery & Flood 2012)

In order for breach of duty to take place, there must be a duty owed to the plaintiff, and the defendant must be neglect of the duty that he owed. In order to test whether the duty was breached or not, there is a reasonable person test. This test is objective in two senses. First, it compares the defendant’s actions, with those that hypothetical person with ordinary prudence and sensibilities would have taken or not under the circumstances. Second the test focuses on the defendant’s behavior, rather than on the defendant’s subjective mental state. This test allows decision to be made on the facts of the case and for the prosecution, to determine whether there was reasonable foresee-ability of harm. According to Mallor even if the defendant has breached a duty, and plaintiff has actually suffered injury there is no liability for negligence without necessary causation link between breach, and injury. Hence causation link involves three issues: 1) was the breach an actual cause of the injury? 2) Was the breach a proximate cause of the injury? 3) What was the effect of any intervening cause, arising after the breach to cause the injury? Thus both actual, and proximate, causes are necessary for a negligence recovery.

The modern day approach to negligence has developed significantly across the twentieth and twenty first century. The stance now taken upon an action for negligence is that it must be established that a duty of care is owed by the defender to the pursuer in order for liability to arise. This came about following the decision made by Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, and has been further developed in a number of other common law examples. Prior to this revolutionary judgement, there was a quantitative restriction as to where a duty of care would arise, primarily only in relationships of a particular nature i.e. a doctor and their patient. Where a wrongdoer carried out an act outside a recognised relationship, there was no general

The medico-legal community has experienced a rise in medical negligence claims in the past six years, as patients are becoming more aware of their rights regarding health care and medical treatment. South Africa has struggled with medical negligence law in the past as there were inefficient procedures for patients to make such claims. However, attorneys in South Africa are bringing experience and professional legal services to the table to help the public receive justice and compensation after suffering from medical negligence.

Negligence is a term used that denotes conduct lacking due care, where else malpractice is known as a professional negligence where the health care personnel performs a professional misconduct, unreasonable lack of skill, or fidelity in professional or judiciary duties (Guido, 2010). There are five elements that makes the above scenario to be classified as a case of negligence and malpractice. The elements are duty owed, breach of the duty owed the patient, foreseeability, causation-cause in fact and causation-proximate cause.

As I review the case from this week I notice a few things. Make is suing the bank because he fell. Under Tort Law he can file the suit because he is trying to seek monetary damages due to negligence. Don’t know if the Injury requirement has been met to be able to recover damages. Causation is the fact that the janitor who should have been closely supervised was not therefore used to much wax causing Mark to fall. Even if the jurisdiction did recognize assumption of risk or contributory negligence due to the fact that Mark didn’t know he was entering a risky situation therefore they can’t say Mark knew the risk. Comparative negligence can be used because of the fact that the bank didn’t supervise the janitor and they knew he should have been

The tort of Negligence is considered relatively a modern tort, prior to 1932 there was no particular standard of care in negligence cases. The existence of a duty of care is a precondition of liability in negligence; it is what transforms factual responsibility for carelessly causing harm into legal responsibility. Originally, ‘a duty of care was recognised only in very limited circumstances’ for instance someone had control of a gun they then had a duty of care to prevent it from causing any harm as in Langridge v Levy. Further, the case of Winterbottom v Wright sought to extend the ratio in Langridge however this was rejected as Langridge was decided on a narrower ground whereas the judges in Winterbottom considered that imposing liability

Would a reasonable person in the position of Simone have foreseen the likelihood of injury to Adam arising out of Simon's behaviour?

Negligence is a common law tort, which has been developed though case law. Despite being a modern tort it is the most common. In order to prove liability in Negligence the claimant must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of care required and as a result the claimant suffered loss or damage which is not too remote.

Negligence is defined as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man…would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.” The general principle is that one should not harm those to whom they owe a duty of care, by act or omission. Action for negligence is grounded on the breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care. To be actionable, negligence must consist of four elements; a duty, breach of the duty, causation and injury. The test frequently applied by the courts is that of a reasonable person placed in the defendant’s circumstances.

The law defines negligence as the failure of a person or company to practice the level of care that a rational, sane person had practiced under the same conditions. When the lack of preparation or foresight leads to damage, the plaintiff may claim the company was negligent and sue for monetary damages. The "harm" can come in the form of physical pain, emotional suffering, economic loss, or a combination of the three .

Court holds that the defendant owed the plaintiff, a duty of reasonable care, if the plaintiff was among those who would foresee-ably be at risk of harm, from defendant’s activities. Duty of reasonable care runs from defendant to plaintiff, meaning that whether the defendant breached the duty or whether the requisite causation link between the defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s injury is established. If the court concludes that plaintiff was not among those foreseeable at risk and the defendant did not owe the plaintiff’s a duty of reasonable care, than plaintiff’s negligence claim is dismissed, for failure to prove required initial element of claim. According to Van Egteren and Smith, under negligence, determination of liability for damages is a function of the