common law rule of contributory negligence under which‚ a plaintiff who was only slightly negligent was barred from recovery. Under the Comparative Fault Act‚ each person whose fault contributed to the injury must bear their proportionate share of the total fault.( Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1‚ et seq.) (http://axilonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/50_State_Compendium_-Final_reduced_size.pdf) Analysis: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102 In all actions brought to recover damage for negligence resulting in
Free Common law Law Tort
210204 Justin King v. Anheuser Busch Companies‚ Inc. I find Contributory Negligence to be the appropriate Affirmative Defensive action. Mr. King exacerbated his injury when he took it upon himself to loosen the wires‚ to his own admittance. Justin King was also swerving and/or switching lanes frequently perhaps not paying attention or distracted by his recent Music Record deal signing with MCI Records. I chose to say contributory negligence because we cannot deny that cases of beer were not properly
Premium Law
Medical malpractice is a category of the negligence tort in which medical professionals commit negligence (Lau & Johnson‚ 2014). Therefore‚ medical malpractice is a specific type of negligence. The following must happened in order to make a claim of medical malpractice: the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff must be established‚ proof that this duty was breached
Premium Health care Medicine Health care provider
CONTACT IS AN ELEMENT OF WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TORTS? intentional infliction of emotional distress conversion BATTERY slander Question 2 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES IN TORT ACTIONS COMMONLY INCLUDE ____. assumption of risk contributory negligence comparative negligence ALL OF THE ABOVE Question 3 ASSAULT‚ BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ARE EXAMPLES OF ____ TORTS THAT INVOLVE INTERFERENCE WITH A PERSON’S BODY. INTENTIONAL toxic criminal negligent Question 4 Bad Jim decides to break
Premium Tort Tort law
damages? • Nuisance • Misrepresentation • Fraud • Negligence 3. Making false statements about a competitor’s products‚ services‚ property‚ or business reputation could make a company liable for • tort of appropriation • intentional misrepresentation • disparagement • misappropriation of the right to publicity 4. A plaintiff wants to sue a defendant under the tort theory of negligence for his injuries‚ but the plaintiff knows he was partially at fault
Premium
Most of the burden of affirmative proof is on the defendant under common law. Answer: False Difficulty: Medium 3. The Ultramares v. Touche case held that auditors could be held liable to any foreseen third party for ordinary negligence. Answer: False Difficulty: Medium 4. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 offers recourse against the auditors to a far greater number of investors than does the Securities Act of 1933. Answer: True Difficulty: Medium
Premium Tort law Auditor's report Legal terms
COURT OF APPEAL Slater v Clay Cross Co Ltd [1956] 2 QB 264 Full text 17 May 1956 DENNING LJ: In Derbyshire there has been for well over a hundred years a railway line owned by the defendants. We were told that George Stephenson himself made it. The defendants use it so as to carry limestone from their quarries at Crich down to Ambergate. It is a small gauge line‚ only three feet‚ three inches wide‚ and is 2 1/2 miles long. On that small line there are two tunnels. One of them‚ with which we
Premium Internal combustion engine Tort law Tort
Whom may Li/Li’s parents file an action against in order to achieve a deep pockets recovery? Rules: Li Intentional infliction of emotional distress False imprisonment Negligence Li’s Parents Respondeat Superior Scienter Mr. Billups Assumption of risk Superseding‚ intervening cause Contributory negligence Scienter School District Respondeat Superior Analysis: Li Intentional Torts Li will attempt to prove she was the victim of intentional torts by her teacher Mr. Billups
Premium Tort law
Concurrent liability Text [13.45] – [13.65]‚ [13.80] – [13.120] Vicarious liability is the liability of an employer for a tort committed by an employee within the course of employment Stevens v Brodribb sawmilling the existence of control between an employer and employee is not enough to prove a relationship for vicarious liability. Further criteria such as obligation to work‚ hours to work etc is also considered Elazac pty ltd v Sheriff the plaintiff was not an employee but a contractor
Premium Tort law Tort
Titanic Case Analysis Estate of Hans Jensen vs. The White Star Line Facts: The White Star Line was owner of the Titanic‚ which was the largest and most luxurious ship in the world at the time. On April 10th‚ 1912‚ the Titanic left from Southampton‚ England with 2‚227 passengers aboard bound for New York City. On April 14th‚ the ship struck an iceberg off the coast of Newfoundland and sank about 2 ½ hours later. Passengers‚ mostly women and children‚ were loaded into lifeboats‚ however only 705
Premium RMS Titanic Tort White Star Line