critically assess if the standard of care has prevent people from causing harm to others in tort of negligence
87380
It is only effective if people know about the law.  Fortunatly buisnesses generally do, so they generally will be encouraged to follow the standard of care.  Many private individuals may be unaware of tort law, and not be deterred from acting irresponsibly.
352326
It's more a way for the hospital to avoid liability.  Imagine a male doctor examines a woman by himself and she claims he did something inappropriate.  This way there's an independant third party to witness the examination... it also comforts the girl... I would think.
569379
it could danger to u\nu should first check what is it all about because people involved in these types of work generally get the undertaking that if something happens to person undergoing test they will not b responsible\nbut if u feel so Strong to help them Coz they also do some good work for community,then u go through all the conditions and regulations and consult Ur doctor\n\ngood luck
1009500
As a nurse, our duty is to protect our patients, do them no harm, intervene in their behalf for the best care, be their advocate, incorporate them in their care, allow them to choose their care, not to push our beliefs on them, listen, prevent pain, work with other staff to expedite their care and release to home. Having said all of this, we are placed in ethical dilemmas caring for our patients. That is why we watch our own for un-ethical behavior, to prevent harm to our patients. It places health care workers to a higher standard and we must practice what we provide for our patients. There are standards of care established for patients and there are organizations that are paid to keep those standards of care intact like Joint Commission of Hospital Accreditation.
831029
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 is still good law.  Recklessness was only one limb of it. The first limb remains the deliberate damaging of property belonging to another and recklessness is the alternative to cover cases where a defendant could argue that he didn't commit the damage deliberately, never having applied his mind to the consequences (being, for example, drunk or drugged. \n\nR v Caldwell applied a highly subjective test to the whole notion of recklessness, the judge having directed the jury to look at the situation not from the point of view of the reasonable man (an adult), but from the point of view of a reasonable child, the defendants in the case being children.  The House of Lords disapproved the ratio of R v.Caldwell in  the 2003 case of R v. G and another.\n\nThe test of recklessness now is: “A person acts recklessly within the meaning of section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 with respect to - (i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist; (ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the circumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk.” \n\nWhich of the many cases known as R v D are you referring to here?  I'm afraid I was unable to trace anything relevant.
693584
1st - Read the case up till House of Lords' Decision. Might help you in understanding the why Lord Atkin came up with this rule ;)\n\n2nd - in answering you question, write the scenario of the case.\n\n3rd - Give the elements of negligence. In order to suceed, they must reach all the elements ;)\n\np/s: in that case, Lord atkin did define who's the neighbour.. u just have to read the case, and find the elements of tort of negligence. oh yeah, give other cases in negligence as examples\n\ngood luck
888991
Well... \n\nfor negligence, you need 4 things\n1.  duty\n2.  breach\n3.  causation\n4.  damages\n\nyou dont have any damages... excpet maybe the price of the chocolate.  what would you sue for?
662601
It's the the level of care legally required of someone in a particular situation.  For instance, parents are legally required to provide a certain level of care to their children, just as a doctor is required to exercise a certain level of care to his or her patient.  Not meeting this level of care can lead to legal liability.
27924
Yes. If you are out to prove that your injuries were the result of negligence by management, you are going to have to prove that your working conditions and those of other people who have similar job assignments inevitably lead to those surgeries. If however, you are the only one who keeps needing surgeries and everyone else is fine, then management can reasonably argue that you are simply a klutz and incompetence on your part is the primary cause of your injuries.
403716
1) duty\n2) breach\n3)causation (actual and proximate)\n4)damages \nyou must meet all four elements for a negligence cause of action.
169583
Typically most state dram shop acts provide for liability only if the person served was "visibly intoxicated" when served.  Under that standard, probably.
227587
Yes. Not necessarily because the person was done harm that needs to be paid for, but because there needs to be punitive damages to deter the medical system from treating patients like commodities. The cost to the system has to be high enough to punish the insurance industry, not just the individual doctor's premiums.
997743
Firstly gather all the information you can, medical records, doctors statements, witnesses etc.  Then go on line and do a google search for free legal advice, choose a firm that specialises in medical negligence then you can get them to assess ur case and see if its worth going further,\n\nP.s you might wanna add some more specific info to your question so someone with legal knowledge can help you better.
1017629
maybe not sue but they should pay for any medical expenses if  their neglect caused the problem.  if you know for a fact the several people have tripped over the same area and the business knows about the hazard and refuses to do anything about it yes you might have a case.\n\nBUT\n\nIf you tripped over you own two feet the business could not have prevented that , you might think about suing your parents though.  you probable inherited big feet or being clumsy from them.  So they are more at fault then the business is especially if you are always tripping over things even when there is nothing there to trip over.
900763
Yes it does.\nThe Elements are traditional for negligence torts: That is, the actor owed the victim some duty, the duty was violated, the violation of the duty caused emotional distress.
420129
There isn't really a "law", you have to describe what happened.  If they did this and you were injured as a result, you have a tort claim.  But you cannot just sue someone for doing something dangerous if no one was injured.
129490
I will venture a guess that this is in the contracts/tort law context?  \n\nEssentially, the doctrine requires the innocent/wronged party to be made whole again - as if he/she had not enter into this contract or being harmed by the tort.  \n\nThis doctrine works when the other party also suffered some losses (or did not benefit), but is more culpable than the other party.