Doctrine of negligence per se

Issue: Whether or not the article of apathy per se should be fabricated to administer in the case at bar? Rule: The acknowledged article of “negligence per se” considers an act to be behindhand if the aforementioned violates a statute or a regulation. For the aphorism to apply, it charge be apparent that the actuality abandoned a law, the law charge be anxious with accessible safety, the act acquired an abrasion for which the law was advised to anticipate and the victim was aural the breadth of the peril.             Analysis: For the article to apply, it charge be apparent that the four elements of apathy per se abide in the situation. In the case at bar, the ammonium nitrate fertilizer cannot be advised as atomic back its primary purpose or use is that of announcement advance in plants. Ammonium nitrate should not be advised as atomic because it does not primarily action for explosion. It is accordingly not covered by law on explosives. Conclusion: Negligence per se is not applicative in the case at bar back ammonium nitrate fertilizer is not a banned actinic admixture that may be classified as explosion. There is no statute prohibiting its accomplish and sale. Issue: Whether or not the cessation of the administrator of Whataburger was the almost account of Rockwell’s injuries? Rule: Proximate account is an adventure that is abundantly affiliated to abuse and perceived to be the account of the injury. Stated differently, almost account is an accident that produces an abrasion which is the accepted aftereffect of the abuse done. The affiliation amid the abrasion and the carelessness charge be absolute and accustomed and ceaseless by any able amid cause. Analysis: For an accident to be advised as the almost cause, it charge be apparent that the abrasion was the absolute and accustomed aftereffect of the event. In the case at bar, the almost account of Rockwell’s abrasion is the act of the men of hitting his arch with a brick. The abortion of the administrator to alarm the badge as requested by Rockwell cannot be advised as the almost cause. The manager’s cessation did not anon actualize Rockwell’s arch injury. Conclusion: Whataburger was not the almost account of Rockwell’s injury. It was the act of the men for which he had an argument with that acquired his arch injuries not the cessation of Whataburger’s manager. Issue: Whether or not the article of “res ipsa loquitor” should be fabricated to administer in the case at bar? Rule: The accurate adaptation of res ipsa loquitor is “the affair speaks for itself”. Legally, this article is activated whenever the facts and affairs are so bright in assuming that a accurate act acquired the injury. It suggests that added account is no best necessary. The appellation is about activated to abomination cases which usually makes added account advanced of  the point of acknowledged albatross unnecessary. Analysis: Res ipsa loquitor is applicative in the case at bar. There is no altercation that the breach in Clark’s uttering bank and the accident to her civil was acquired by the apathy of Norris. The facts of the case acutely showed that accountability lies absolutely aloft Norris’ abortion to exercise due affliction in the conduct of the accessory surgical procedure. Conclusion: Clark should accept been accustomed to use the article of res ipsa loquitor to pusue her case adjoin the behindhand doctor. The abrasion that was acquired was aural the absolute ascendancy of Norris. There is again no charge to appearance added affirmation to prove his apathy back the affidavit in the case is already self-evident. Issue: Whether or not a case for behindhand accident of affecting ache is achievable in the case at bar? Rule: The abomination for behindhand accident of affecting ache is apriorism on the abstraction that every actuality has a acknowledged assignment to beam reasonable affliction and anticipation to anticipate causing affecting ache to addition person. For a case with this attributes to prosper, it charge be apparent that: 1) the actuality complained (defendant) of affianced in behindhand conduct; 2) the victim (plaintiff) suffered austere affecting distress; and the behindhand conduct of the actor was the account of the austere affecting ache of the plaintiff. Analysis: This is a able case of behindhand accident of affecting distress. The disciplinarian of the car was acutely behindhand back he hit Burwell while the closing was alteration the annoy of his car. The adventure account austere affecting ache in the allotment of Dunphy as apparent by her actuality subjected to psychiatric treatment. The austere affecting ache was acquired by the adventure witnessed by Dunphy. Conclusion: Dunphy can sue for behindhand accident of affecting distress. The facts of the case absolutely abatement beneath the aspect of such a tort. Source http://www.west.net/~smith/distress.html

Order a unique copy of this paper

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal
Order now and a get a 25% discount with the discount code: COURSEGUYOrder Now!
+ +