Business Law

A plaintiff in a civil cause of action must generally show three things to establish a strict liability offense. The first is that a defendant, which can be a person or a company, did something that was inherently dangerous and unreasonable under the circumstances. The plaintiff must then show that the inherently dangerous act caused something bad to happen to the plaintiff. Finally, the plaintiff must show they actually suffered harm as a result of their injury. If a plaintiff cannot show an actual harm, such as a physical injury, they may not be able to make their strict liability

The tort of negligence is the term used to categorise behaviour that poses substantial risks to other people and property.

In Caparo Industries plc v Dickman7, it was determined that courts had to test the duty by “whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant, and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty.”8 If so, then a duty of care could arise.

Once it has been established that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the claimant must also demonstrate that the defendant was in violation of duty.

Negligence is the most common type of liability case that healthcare organization face. It often occurs when a person fails to hold up to the accepted standards of behavior. There are four elements essential to proving negligence: 1. a duty of care, Duty is a legal obligation the defendant owes to the plaintiff. In a negligence case the duty is most commonly expressed as a general obligation to act with care in other words to conduct oneself as a reasonably prudent person would do in similar circumstances. 2. Breach of that duty: A breach of duty occurs when one person or company has a duty of care toward another person or company, but fails to live up to that standard.  A person may be liable for negligence in a personal injury case if his breach of duty caused another person’s injuries. Once the duty has been established, the plaintiff must show that it was breached by presenting evidence of the facts of the case and testimony from expert witness which is usually the same witness who established the duty in the beginning. 3. injury: Damage or harm

RULE - Negligence occurs when an entity fails to exercise ordinary care to avoid injury to others. For a valid negligence claim the plaintiff must establish the following elements of proof: duty of care, breach of duty, cause in fact, proximate cause, and actual loss or harm. If the defendant can attack any of these elements they may successfully defend the negligence suit. The first element is establishing the presence of a duty of care owed by one party to another.

In this case the manufacturer or other parties involved in the distribution of the product will be liable even in the absence of negligence on their part. In order for the plaintiff to Prevail in such a case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant manufactured or sold the product, that the product was defective, that there was actual and proximate causation of the plaintiff's injuries resulting from the product's defects, and that the defect existed at the time the product was conveyed by the defendant.

Small injuries or damages may occur when products malfunction, death may occur, or there could be damage done to ones property. The company could face possible lawsuits and in order to prove negligence, an individual must have had a duty of care, which is defined as having responsibility to act in the best interest of another. A company must always be ready to defend itself in all the possible issues that may arise and cause any form of lawsuit (WiseGeek, 2003).

These are the factual and the proximate cause of the events case scenario. Despite the fact that Candie Cardigan falling off the runway was the cause of Myra’s nose and facial injuries, she was the indirect and unforeseeable future cause for the plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant is therefore not legally responsible for the damages of which the plaintiff claims as a negligent act. (Mitchell v. Gonzales, 1991).

Negligence: Breach of a legal duty to act reasonably; the direct cause of injury to another.

That the claimant’s damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of the product by the claimant or someone else.

If defendant’s acts or omissions are found to be substantial contributing factors in the injury and without these contributing factors the injury would not have happened, then cause in-fact will be established. Beyond substantial factors, the other element of proximate cause is foreseeability. As Smith and Johnson (2010) have observed, “Employers typically defend nonsubscriber claims on the proximate cause of negligence… Foreseeability is a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case that is often not present in many employee injury cases” (p. 102). Consequently, defendants will likely attack the foreseeability element. The burden will be on the plaintiff to argue that “more likely than not” the defendant’s acts and omissions were the proximate causes of the injury. Expert testimony regarding how the injury occurred, as well as its foreseeability, will be key in determining whether the plaintiff or defendants will prevail. This brings us to the final element should causation be proved – that of

Negligence requires a showing that a duty was owed, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damages.

- Warranties are a voluntary promise offered to consumers by manufacturers, service providers or sellers and are separate from the automatic protection of consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law.

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