Case Study: Pete Sues Alice For Negligence

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

Jane kidnaps Edward's elderly mother and tells Edward that if he does not paint graffiti on Eric's house, Jane will kill his mother.

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

39. Under the doctrine of ________, the plaintiff may only recover the proportionate amount of damages attributable to the defendant’s negligence

Which of the following is not considered one of the threshold issues that must be met before one can bring a lawsuit?

b. Your instructor has the initial responsibility to take appropriate action with regard to cheating. Correct

1) Yes. Defendant owes no duty to protect Adair from the harm he alleges because an inherent risk of rock climbing includes the negligence of co-participants as well as the danger of falling.

With his experience, he knows what will likely happen to Holden. He wants to give him a warning before he “falls”.

12. Tiffany hires Tim to drive her car for business purposes. Tim informs Tiffany that his driver’s license if suspended, but Tiffany disregards that and still permits him to drive her car. Who will be held liable if Tim gets into an accident who will be held liable?

Gerry was, in fact, negligent when he decided to hit golf balls, out of his backyard into the Cash-Mart parking lot, that ended up hitting Patty in the head. First, Gerry had a duty of care not to hit the golf balls out of his backyard. By living close to the Cash-Mart he has a duty to Patty and anyone else, coming or leaving the store, to act as a reasonable person and keep the balls in his yard. By allowing the balls to leave his backyard, he was neglect in his actions. He put Patty and anyone else in danger of being injured by the balls.

2. The school should be held liable for Holbrook injury of there was no school supervision provided in the area Holbrook and other students were gathering.

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: “The first question is whether the circumstances disclose reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to establish prima facie duty of care. The first inquiry at this stage is whether the case falls within or is analogous to a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The next question is whether this is situation in which a new duty of care should be recognized. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy consideration outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It is useful to expressly ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. This part of test only arises in cases where the duty of care asserted does not fall within a recognized category. The trial judge concluded that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in negligence and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring a class action”.

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

A defendant, like TEACHER, would be held liable for negligence, if the plaintiff, JENNIFER, can prove that there was a duty owed to her, that TEACHER breached that duty, the breach of that duty was the actual and proximate cause of Betty’s injuries.