Issue: Was the ambulance center liable for Rose's injury in car crash and delay of treatment?
Rules:
● This question is about negligence liability.
● A person who suffers damage because of defects in a product, caused by the carelessness of the manufacture or other party responsible for the state of the goods, may have a right to sue in "negligence".
● To be successful in a claim of negligence, the claimant must prove that:
1 The defendant owned the duty of care
2 The defendant failed to perform that duty
3 The claimant suffered damage
● To consider whether the duty of care exists, the court must take into account the following criteria:
1 Reasonable foreseeability. No duty of care will exist unless it is reasonably foreseeable that particular claimant was vulnerable to the risk created by the defendant.
2 Proximity. There is a close enough relationship of proximity between the defendant's acts and the claimant at the time of the wrong complained of.
3 Public interest taking into account fairness, justice and reasonableness. A duty of care will not be acknowledged unless it is fair, just and reasonable and not damaging to the interests of the public at large, however beneficial it might be to the individual claimant.
Application of the rules:
曲嘉瑞● The ambulance center did own Mrs Rose a duty of care. As she was the user of its service, she was somebody who reasonably foreseeably would be affected by the way the defendant processed its service.
● The medical employees didn't secure Rose to the portable bed and made Rose's injury in car crash and delay of treatment, so Rose, the claimant, suffered from the negligence of the defendant.
● Public health considerations made it desirable to impose a duty, so it is fair to put the loss on the ambulance center who stood to profit in general from his service.
● Rose had to be transported by another ambulance to a hospital causing a delay in treatment, so she can prove that by objective standards the defendant failed to take care of her.
钕铁硼磁性材料
● There was evidence that the injury and delay of treatment were actually caused by the ambulance center's service. As the result, Rose suffered consequential damage. Conclusion:
The ambulance center should be liable for Rose's injury in car crash and delay of treatment.
Issue: Could Jenny successfully claim all losses including price of Barbie doll, other property damages and medical cost from Supertoy Company?
Rules:
● This question is about pure economic loss
● PEL: Pure economic loss is a financial loss arising in which there is no previous personal injury or property damage to the claimant. The claimant suffers nothing but financial injury.
● CEL: Consequential economic loss is arising from physical damage or injury, such as loss of earnings, following an accident.
Application of the rules:
● Maggie is in full accordance with the product instructions and the economic loss was
caused by the product quality. The property damages and medical cost belong to the consequential economic loss. So the claimant was entitled to recover the consequential cost of restocking the pajamas and other furniture and for the medical cost of Maggie's burned arm.
● However, Maggie was not entitled to recover for profits loss of Barbie doll, since this was just arising a financial cost, which was the pure economic loss only.
Conclusion:
Jenny could successfully claim all losses including other property damages and medical cost from Supertoy Company except the price of Barbie doll.
Case 3
Issue: Should British Assurance Company pay any money to Mr. Murphy?
Rules:
● toubaiThis question is about the legal personality and "the veil of incorporation".
● A person's legal personality is made up of that person's legal rights and duties.
● It is not just humans who have legal rights and duties: the law permits the creation of artificial or legal persons (corporations) which have a legal personality, separate from the members.
● If it appears that the alleged company is a mere facade for the fraudulent activities of the owner, it is known as "lifting the veil of incorporation".
Application of the rules:
● The Irish Sawmills company is a legal entity which has its own legal rights , distinct from that of the company's members, such as Mr. Murphy. The insurance policies are in Murphy's own name, not the company's. So the British Assurance Company has no duty to pay for the insurance fees.
豫公网安备41160202000603
站长QQ:729038198
关于我们
投诉建议