Briefly explain the required elements the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence to establish that a defendant is liable for negligence.
Negligence may refer to a cause of action in which the plaintiff is able to assert a civil tort case against the defendant. In order for the plaintiff to meetana “on its face” case for inattention, he or she necessity has to be able to verify the subsequent four features. First, he or she must be able to ascertain that there existed a duty on the defendant’s part to kowtow to specific principles of demeanour. Second, the plaintiff must be able to give sufficient evidence that the perpetrator broke that duty. The third element is that the accuser must prove that the break of duty was not only a real clause but the proximate source of damage. The fourth and final component the plaintiff must prove is the fact that there are damages. Therefore, in a negligence action suit, the plaintiff must be able to prove clearly that the accused defendant was the real and adjoining reason for the damage sustained. Hence, the description of the definite reason is similar to the “But for test”. This simply means that if it were not for the acts of the defendant, the injury would not have occurred.
1 a) What does it mean that a defendant is negligent per se?
In the law of torts, this implies that if the engagements of the defendant desecrated a regulation or law. Then, the court of law would ruminate the activities to be slipshod without questioning if or not a sound individual could have done a similar thing. During most of the cases, the magistrate will solitary be concerned about whether the law was dishonoured and, if it was violated, what indemnities were caused.
2. Explain the importance of factual cause and legal cause when determining whether the defendant caused the plaintiff injuries in a negligence case.
The actual clause also referred to as “cause in fact” is direct. For example, when a bus hits a car, the actions of the bus driver are the actual cause of the accident. On the other hand, proximate clause also means” legal clause”. In this case it is not only the first event that set in motion a series of events that caused the injury, and it may not also be the last event prior to the injuries. What this means, in other words, is that the plaintiff has to prove that injuries were the direct and natural consequence of the proximate clause, without which the injuries would not have befallen.
3. Briefly explain the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
In the conjoint law of unlawful act, “Res Ipsa Loquitur” is a principle that concludes carelessness from the form of an injury or accident without direct evidence of the defendant’s behaviour. From this doctrine, the essentials of “duty of care, breach, and causation” are all contingent on the damage, which does not normally happen without disregard.
4. Briefly discuss the various defences to negligence.
Contributory Negligence
This mostly happens the minute the demeanour of the plaintiff lies underneath a definite standard essential for the claimant’s defence, and the behaviour collaborates with the negligence of the perpetrator in instigating injury to the accuser. Simply, this implies that the complainant could have evaded the damages if they were not careless.
Comparative Negligence
This doctrine decreases the claimant’s compensation by a portion in which the petitioner is responsible for their own damages.
Assumption of Risk
In this doctrine, in case the accuser assumes that the risks involved are hazardous but still proceeds to engage in the activity, they may not recover from the damages which might occur.
5. What is a strict liability tort? Give an example of a strict liability tort.
This refers to the imposition of liability on a party without evidence of fault. The litigant requirements are only to verify that the offence transpired and that the accused offender is liable. Some of the examples of strict liability torts include product liability, animals owned or possessed, and lastly, abnormal dangerous acts.
