Maxim In The Wagon Mound

Clarify the differences and similarities of traditional negligence theory and res ipsa loquitur. Be sure to include at least two examples of each not discussed in the book.

5. Damages - In this case damages unquestionably exist. Mr. M had significant injuries and has apparently suffered some permanent impacts on his capacity as a result of the episode so the damages element is satisfied.

Strict Liability – strict liability is where a mens rea is not needed to prove liability.

reckless conduct and the emotional distress. Lastly, the fourth prong states that the injury must

5. The witness should describe the effects of the injury; this will include the effects on his

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.

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

Over the past decade, the increase in participation from recreational sporting activities to organized has increased significantly (Taniguchi, 2003). With more individuals taking part, the amount of injuries has escalated and the amount of negligent lawsuits soon followed. The courts have had to acclimate themselves and look at sporting injuries through the lens of tort law (Harvard Law Review, 2008). The landmark case in the state of California, Knight v. Jewett, the state supreme court upheld the original ruling that participants who knowingly cause injury to another contestant outside of the normal rules of conduct while participating in a sporting activity, are liable or negligent, changed the course how courts would rule in tort cases (Harvard Law Review, 2008). Hence, tort law is now a leading point of discussion in athletic and physical education departments in our local school districts (Taniguchi, 2003). Included in the discussion is intentional tort, when a player injuries another participant purposely (Wolohan, 2013). For intentional tort to be ruled on, three essentials must be present: 1.an injury must have occurred, 2. the cause of injury is due to a negligent act, 3. the act that caused the injury must be intentional (Wolohan, 2013). Thus, the merging of recreational activities, extreme sports, and physical education programs, intentional tort law will be looked at in the school setting.

rightly mentions the causation of injury or harm.It is an umbrella term that incorporates a

I am always fascinated with the legal terms that after so much time has passed still remain in the Latin language. In Chapter 3, the Latin term res ipsa loquitur was explained as meaning literally “the thing speaks for itself”. It is uses in cases where the defendant’s negligence is presumed as a result of his or her actions. This makes it much easier on the injured plaintiff because now the burden of truth is the responsibility of the accused. This of course didn’t let the victim off the hook because they still must still explain the harm that was caused, what the defendant was doing at the time, how his/her actions connected to the incident. The reason I find this doctrine so interesting is simply because it deals with scenarios that

The tort of negligence was established with the leading case of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) . Donoghue got sick from having a drink in a café after finding a snail in the bottle. Around this time, there was no route for litigation due to no contractual association. The only contractual commitment was with Donoghue’s friend who bought the drink and the café owner. Lord Atkin quoted the Bible’s principle of

The case of Donoghue versus Stevenson was a landmark case in Scottish and English tort law, establishing from that point forward a precedent for identification of negligence as a determination of liability. My colleague's posting provides some interesting insight into how this precedent was arrived at. The posting also leaves room for yet more extensive discussion on the legal implications of the 1932 decision.

If s/he cannot, then the plaintiff wins the case. Res Ipsa Loquitur occurred in the case of Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks (1865), where the plaintiff was walking past the warehouse of the defendant when he was struck on the head with six bags of sugar. He sued the defendant, and Res Ipsa Loquitur was established. The defendant could not offer any other reasonable explanation for what had happened, so Scott (the plaintiff) won the case. I would say that the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur would help Freddy in his action, in that there isn't any other reasonable explanation apparent, so when the burden shifts to Elvis, he may not be able to come up with one, and so Freddy will win his case.

The purpose of this assignment is to discuss the creation and application the case law resulting from the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson . This decision is often cited in relation to the tort of negligence and a duty of care. As such it could be misunderstood as being the preeminent case for the principles of negligence or duty of care alone. It is however the landmark precedent case for the tort of negligence outside of a contract when taking into account ‘duty of care’ and the ‘neighbour priciple’.