Torts
The law of Torts is concerned with compensation for damage suffered as a result of another's acts or omissions."These actions in Tort generally involve one person infringing the rights of another in circumstances that give rise to legal liability." (GRAY, Anthony, 1998:24)In this report, the plaintiff, C.D Wright will be advised in relation to negligence claims, whether or not she would be successful with her case against Jay. To do so, precedent cases have been researched and legal principles have been applied.Jay had invited C.D Wright over for a party to his ground floor duplex that he paid weekly rent for at the time. C.D Wright arrived shortly after the party had started. There was noticeably poor lighting and a great deal of noise. Jay was aware of the large hole his dog dug at the bottom of his steps, but made no attempt to fix it or make it visible. As a result of Jay's negligent actions, C.D Wright fell in the hole and hit her head on the concrete surface. Since her fall she has suffered severe headaches and would like to recover costs for the ambulance transfer and other costs not covered by Medicare.There are three elements of negligence that must be proven in
"The occupiers obligation towards a licensee was to take reasonable care to prevent harm to him or her from a state or condition of the premises known to the occupier but unknown to the visitor, which the use of reasonable care on the visitor's part would not disclose, and which, considering the nature of the premises, the occasion of the leave and license, and the circumstances generally, a reasonable man would have been misled into failing to anticipate or suspect" (BOULTON, Mark, 1988:57-58)It is evident that Jay owed a duty of care to C. The presence of causation was established with use of the 'but for' test. The foreseeability principle says "that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected". Most derive from the inequities existing between the parties, i. order for civil negligence to be successful. Both incidents could have been prevented in relation to what a reasonable person would do in these situations because both incidents were foreseeable. , Torts, 1988, The Law book company LTD, Australia5. D Wright, the defendant liable because of the defendant's failure to remove or make visible at the least the presence of danger, which held causation to the plaintiff's injuries. "The law says that an occupier has a duty of care towards anyone who comes onto his premises. A reasonable person would have taken precautions to assist their obligation towards a licensee/s while hosting a function. Gray entered into a contract with a shipowner whose ship was in the defendant's dock to paint the outside of his ship. It can also mean that the court finds that the defendant is not liable at all for the plaintiff's injuries, and therefore the defendant does not have to pay damages.
Common topics in this essay:
CD Wright,
COURT APPEAL,
Litigation Litigation,
COURT AUSTRALIA,
David Jones,
GRAY Anthony,
Heaven Pender,
Wright Jay,
Pender Appendix,
HELD Brett,
duty care,
cd wright,
reasonable care,
david jones,
gray anthony,
reasonable person,
outside ship,
legal principles,
defendant liable,
elements negligence,
duty care towards,
reasonable care prevent,
hawkins couldson purley,
owed duty care,
defendant dock owner,
|
Acceptance Essays
