Table of Contents Introduction 2 (3.1) Contrast liability in torts with contractual liability 3 (3.2) Explain the nature of liability in negligence & (3.3) Explain how a business can be vicariously liable 4 (4.1) Apply the elements of the tort of negligence and defences in the above different business situations for the legal officer who is assigned to VJSC & (4.2) Apply the elements of vicarious liability in above different business situations for the legal officer who is assigned to VJSC 8 Conclusion 11 References 12 Introduction Law plays important roles to protect benefits, obligations and bringing fair for everybody in society. This report gives information about tortuous liability, contractual liability, …show more content…
- Cannot measure clearly the damages.- Difficult to determine exactly compensation rate so the compensation will be based on the actual extent of damage occurred. | - A violation of the contents which parties signed in the contract.- Parties have a close relationship because they have time for agreements and sign the contract together. - If the breach of contract occurs that the person violated have a contractual liability to the other party of the contract.- The damages can be quantitative because they are regulated in the contract.- The compensation under the liquidated damage that means compensation which determined based on the formula and stipulations that the parties have agreed in the contract. | (3.2) Explain the nature of liability in negligence & (3.3) Explain how a business can be vicariously liable A human who lives in society must follow the provisions of law is having a duty of care by respecting and protecting the rights and benefit legal of others. Negligence is behaviour which infringes on the rights and legal interests of others. However, these behaviours are not deliberate actions by an individual or entity who did not perform well their reasonable care which bring the consequences of monetary damages or personal injury. To sue a person who violating behaviour of negligence, the
A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.
Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.
In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.
38. Which of the following describes when an employer is held vicariously liable for the torts of the “servant” or employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment?
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
breach of express and implied contracts based on the theory of promoter liability. The courts
Negligence Per Se: Violation of a standard of care set by statute. Example: injuring a
12. Which of the following torts committed by an agent is the liability of the principal?
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or the responsibility of any third party that had the ability or duty to control the activities of a violator. Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment. Employers will only be liable for the torts of their employees. They will not usually be liable for the torts of their independent contractors. It is therefore necessary to establish the status of the tortfeasor (Law Teacher 2012).
Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable
The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to
Q #2 Stakeholder analysis, specifying to the extent or degree stakeholders should be held responsible for the accident.
Tort law is a very prevalent aspect of conducting business and daily life in the twenty first century. According to the textbook, The Legal Environment of Business, tort law provides “remedies for the invasion of various protected interests.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) In this essay about tort law, I will talk about a tort case that has personally impacted me. To do so, I will provide a background of the event, apply facts of the case to applicable law, summarize lessons of the week as they relate to this case and provide a plausible argument for the parties involved.
In a departure from the traditional application of long standing case law, the close connection test was altered. The crucial change was to give rise to vicarious liability if the exchange involved a seamless chain of events . This development came following crucial developments in the Christian Brothers case. Where the vicarious liability relationship was extended to those analogous to employment . The other crucial development arose in Cox. In which Lord Reed extended vicarious liability for a person acting in their own interests. However he stressed the importance of the person acting in the scope of the activities assigned to him by the defendant. The defendant in assigning these duties generates a risk of the tort .
“Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. - When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, form the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when