Tags: Writing Academic Case StudyCritical Thinking TestsPersuasive Essays OnlineGlass Essay Poetry FoundationEssays On The Word InitiativeArundhati Roy EssayDo You Write Scholarship Essays In First PersonFishbone Diagram Problem Solving
S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? Nwagu (1960) SC NLR 48; (1960) 3 FSC 16; Nigerian Airways Ltd V. For instance, in Palsgraf v Long Island Rail Road Co.,17 the judge decided that the defendant, a railway was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander.
There are three elements that must be present for an act or omission to be negligent; (1) The defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff; (2) The defendant breached the duty of care by an act or omission; (3) The plaintiff must suffer damage as a result - be it physical, emotional or financial.
The court might decide that Freddy (the plaintiff) was owed a duty of care by Elvis (the defendant) if they find that what happened to Freddy was in the realm of reasonable forseeability - any harm that could be caused to a 'neighbour' by Elvis' actions that he could reasonably have expected to happen. From this legal precedent, I would say that Elvis harmed his neighbour, Freddy, negligently, because he did closely and directly affect his well-being by not taking into account what might reasonably happen when he carelessly dropped some bricks. 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.
Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation.
Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on insurance bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business.
The 'neighbour principle' was established in the case of Donoghue v. (B) This case relates to negligence (as defined above) and the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur - the facts speak for themselves. He sued the defendant, and Res Ipsa Loquitur was established.
In cases involving proven Res Ipsa Loquitur, the burden to show that the defendant was negligent (or whatever the tort may be) by the plaintiff shifts to the defendant, who must prove that there is another reasonable explanation for whatever misfortune befell the plaintiff. 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. Introduction NEGLIGENCE1 Negligence is a legal concept in the common law legal systems usually used to achieve compensation for injuries (not accidents). 18 Interestingly, the plaintiff's physical injuries were minor and more likely caused by a stampede of travelers on the platform rather than the concussion of the exploding fireworks. 23 (1951) AC 367 24 Ballard v North British Railway (1923) SC 43. 26 Scott v London & St Katherine's Docks (1865) 3 H & C 596. v Ozoemena (2007) All FWLR 1018; Benson v Utubor (1975) 3 SC 19; Okoli v Nwagu (1960) SCNLR 48. Plc v Olarewaju (2007) All FWLR 362, Per Ogunwumiju, JCA ?? (ii) There must have been a failure by the defendant to attain the standard of care prescribed by the law, thus leading to a breach of the duty to take care. (iii) Are there damages suffered by the complainant flowing from the breach? Introduction The concept of duty of care in negligence has developed in a manner that ensures both the claimant and defendants are fairly treated.To achieve this objective, the essay is organised into three parts.Negligence is generally defined as conduct that is culpable because it falls short of what a reasonable person would do to protect another individual from a foreseeable risk of harm. Often, in litigation, where two defendants are equally liable but one is more able to satisfy a judgment, he will be the preferred defendant and is referred to as the "deep pocket." 20 (1967) 1 AC 617. Through civil litigation, if an injured person proves that another person acted negligently to cause his injury, he can recover damages to compensate for his harm.