Florida Negligence Analysis
Legal Claims for Cal
Negligence- Abe
The first claim that Cal can bring is negligence against Abe for causing the accident. Negligence is the failure of an individual to use reasonable care. Under Florida law, negligence has four components that must be met in order for damages to be obtained.
Legal Duty
A plaintiff must prove that the negligent person had a legal duty to use reasonable care in protecting the injured person
Under Florida law, the requirement is that the standard of care is one of a "reasonably prudent person."
Florida also requires that the incident occurs within a foreseeable-zone-of-risk
Here, Abe was driving the car and Cal was the passenger. It was Abe's duty to safely transport Cal without any accidents or incidents.
Breach of Duty
The second requirement is that Cal prove that Abe breached this duty. A breach of duty is failure to conform to the standard of care.
Here, Abe caused a car accident. By causing a car accident Abe was not acting as a reasonably prudent person because he violated a traffic law causing the accident and failing to transport Cal safely in his car.
Causation
The third requirement is causation. Under Florida law, Cal must prove that Abe was the proximate cause of his injuries. Under proximate cause, the cause of the injuries must have been foreseeable by the defendant.
Here, Cal sustained two injuries during the car accident. The first injury was a minor head injury as a result of the initial collision. The second injury was severe damage to his legs due to Ann hitting the two cars immediately after the initial accident. Both of these injuries are directly stemming from the collision, and are therefor foreseeable in an accident setting.
It can be argued, however, that Cal's second injury is too far remotely removed from the...
Employee Privacy Torts Issues relating to employee privacy have been at the forefront of businesses for many years. This has been fuelled by the dynamic workplace which changes constantly and also by employees and employers being more litigation-conscious. Technology has also spurred on employee privacy issues with e-mail and the internet being related to heightened concerns about vulnerability of employers to litigation. Many employers have thus exacerbated their concerns relating to
Fault: An Alternative to the Current Tort-Based System in England and Wales The United Kingdom statistics regarding claims THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM OBSTACLES TO DUE PROCESS THE CASE FOR REFORM THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THE RISING COST OF LITIGATION LORD WOOLF'S REFORMS MORE COST CONTROLS THE UNITED STATES PAUL'S PULLOUT THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TORT REFORM IN AMERICA FLEEING PHYSICIANS STATISTICS FOR ERROR, INJURY AND DEATH THE CALL FOR REFORM IN 2003: A FAMILIAR REFRAIN THE UNITED STATES SITUATION, IN SUMMARY NEW ZEALAND CASE STUDIES THE SWEDISH SCHEME COMPARISON: WHICH SYSTEM IS
constitute a public nuisance a landowner must engage in an activity that significantly interferes with the use or enjoyment of the property by others or the activity must affect the health, safety, welfare, or comfort of the public at large (Schwartz, 2006). In the instant case, the judge must examine the facts in the case and perform a balancing test between the interests of the dairy farm owner and
As it is important for IBM Canada, to: identify different types of legal liabilities and their possible consequences on a regular basis. Some of the main legal risks being faced by the company include: employee lawsuits, cyber issues, product liability, patent / licensing and criminal investigations / compliance. Employee Lawsuits An employee lawsuit is a legal issue of paramount importance for IBM Canada. Discontent employees can file a claim against the
McIntyre vs. Balentine is one of the landmark cases in the United States because of its contribution to the adoption of a system of modified comparative fault in Tennessee. Based on this system, a plaintiff may receive compensation for damages where his/her fault is less than the defendant's fault. Notably, the recovery of damages by the plaintiff is lessened to reflect his/her extent of fault. In situations involving several tortfeasors,
Dangerfield and Associate Entities Upon examining this case, it's clear that the claims made by Hartman are completely legitimate. The claims made by Mitchell are somewhat legitimate. This paper will first examine the basis of the lawsuit waged by Hartman, as the bulk of the valid accusations made are made by this particular plaintiff. The crux of Hartman's lawsuit is based on the claim that Dangerfield was liable for the negligence
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now