Law school essay format. duty of care law essay pay to write criminal law admission essay cu boulder sample essays self reflection essay questions how to write essays and compositions protestant reformation dbq essay popular mba essay ghostwriters website best school essay ghostwriting sites ca college cause and effect essay essay about your. From the Paper: "And so, post Anns v Murphy, we see the Courts becoming more open about the application of policy in determining the presence of a Duty of Care*; In Hill, no duty was held to exist primarily because of the public policy consideration in relation to defensive policing [although there was also the issue of remoteness]. Irac of Negligence Essay examples. Words Jul 23rd, 6 Pages. a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, , p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. "Tort law appears to discriminate between different types of defendants such as public entities, rescuers, children, manufacturers, etc. when establishing a duty of care and to whom. This is because the law of torts is a specialized area of the law that seeks to account for damages in a " Cite this Analytical Essay: APA Format. Law essays. Our law essay examples and dissertation examples cover a wide range of topics in this field of study, including obligations (contract and tort), public law (constitutional law, administrative law and human rights law), criminal law, property law, equity and the law of trusts, and law .
- From the Paper:
- 4th grade narrative essay prompts
- Popular Essays
- Term paper sample outline in apa
- Free Law essays
- Top Tips for writing Law Essays
- Ppt on eid festival essay
What's Being Tested? In using this material, you should first study the negligence outline in Part 1. The outline is not intended to be a thorough summary of the law in the area of negligence. It is to be used in conjunction with the sample exam and sample answer to show the principles talked about in this book.
After studying the outline, read the question.
Next, attempt to outline an answer. Then compare your outline with the one in Part 3. Finally, try writing an answer.
From the Paper:
A sample answer is contained in Part 4. Defenses Rule Common Law : A prima facie 2 case of negligence exists IF the following conditions are proven: Defendant had a duty of reasonable care. Defendant breached that duty.
4th grade narrative essay prompts
The breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Some sort of damage occurred to the plaintiff or her property. Duty of reasonable care definition Every person has the duty to exercise the care of a reasonable and prudent person in the same or similar circumstances. Breach of duty Breach is a question of fact that must be proven by showing: Some behavior occurred on the part of the defendant AND defendant's behavior was unreasonable.
Proximate Cause or Legal Causation limits liability to those harms that were: foreseeable to the defendant by his behavior BUT no liability exists for unforeseeable harms even if directly caused by defendant.
Defenses Contributory Negligence Plaintiff contributed to the negligent act. Plaintiff is subject to same standard as negligence. Emergency Doctrine Allows defendant to lower standard of care because an emergency required them to act rashly in order to avoid a greater harm from occurring. Custom Custom can be used to show that behavior was in line with the behavior of everyone else. Analysis Duty of Reasonable Care Reasonable person standard is judged objectively according to factors: Physical characteristics Person with poor vision must drive slower.
Age Children held to a lower standard than adults. Held to standard of reasonable care for a child of same age, education, intelligence and experience. Professionals Doctor held to a standard of care of a reasonable doctor with same education and in same community. Breach of Duty - Types of proof Violation of law is proof of breach. Res ipsa loquitur 3 Inference of negligence because no other reasonable explanation exists for the harm caused.
Was harm foreseeable? Direct and Proximate Causation Direct Cause But-for test Ask question: Would the same harm have resulted if defendant had not breached his duty? Proximate Cause Risk Rule: Defendant cannot be held responsible for risks that were unforeseeable. There was no duty of reasonable care because harm was unforeseeable.
Cases Wilson v. Emergency doctrine : In a drive-through bank line, the car in front of defendant start backing up quickly, so defendant backs up as well without looking. Sudden emergency doctrine lowers standard of reasonable care. Should have looked but emergency avoided a harm to himself. Carroll Towing. Breach illustration. Judge Learned Hand. Barge breaks loose of its moorings without watchman on board.
Barge sinks with cargo. Barge company is liable for cargo because the burden of taking precautions - having watchman on board - was negligible compared with probability of harm of a barge breaking loose of its moorings. Custom defense. Tugboat ran into a storm and lost its cargo. Tugboat didn't carry a radio on board so didn't get the weather reports. Tugboat owner is not liable for negligence in not carrying a radio because it's the s and the custom was not yet established to always carry a radio on boat.
Palsgraf v. Long Island RR. Proximate Cause. Judge Cardoza. Railroad guard pushes man who drops package. Package contains hidden fireworks that explode and cause scales to fall harming plaintiff. Illustrates that harm was not foreseeable by guard as to plaintiff so no proximate cause.
The outline here is meant to illustrate techniques of outlining rather than be a comprehensive overview of negligence. The following example is meant to illustrate a typical question and suggest an approach on how you might outline the relevant issues and facts. Unless you have already taken torts, you probably won't immediately recognize why some of the facts are relevant. What's important to see here, however, is not the law, but to illustrate that once you know the law, you should note the relevant facts in order to spot the issues.
One nine-year-old child, Kevin, runs into the street chasing a soccer ball. David, without looking over his shoulder, swerves into the other lane to avoid Kevin and in the process he hits a car, driven by Peter, that was speeding past him in the left-hand lane going in the same direction. Peter loses control of his car, hits a telephone pole and is seriously and permanently injured.
The telephone pole, owned by the local phone company TeleCo, easily snaps into two pieces and hits Kevin, who is still in the street, knocking him unconscious and resulting in permanent injuries. TeleCo never did any testing of its poles to establish how easily the poles broke.
The only factor used in manufacturing the poles was cost. The poles were made of low quality trees and were not treated in any significant manner except for a coating of tar. No reinforcement was used on the poles. Boston Edison Co. Notice how the court came out in those circumstances.
What follows is a sample outline to the problem discussed above. This outline has far more words in it than you would want to use in an actual exam. This detail just illustrates the framework of an answer to make it comprehensible to you. You would want to abbreviate words and otherwise use a lot of shortcuts in an actual exam in order to save time.
Term paper sample outline in apa
Once you understand the analytical framework, an actual outline of the first issue might look more like this:. Under what legal theory can they bring an action? What are the defenses? What are the significant facts proving the theory or defense? What are the damages if defendant is held liable? The injured individuals can seek damages based on a theory of negligence. I will examine the potential liability of each party in turn.
Free Law essays
The prima facie case for negligence is established by showing a duty of reasonable care, breach of the duty, actual and proximate cause and damage.
Although David may have breached a duty in not looking when changing lanes, he has a defense in the emergency doctrine. To prove negligence, Peter has the burden to prove that David had a duty to drive more carefully. One theory would be that David should drive slower than the speed limit when kids were present. Evidence of breaking the law is automatically considered a breach of a duty, but not breaking the law doesn't necessarily establish that a breach didn't occur.
All of the facts and circumstances must be considered.
Since 25 MPH is a standard speed limit for residential areas where kids normally play, I don't think that David had a duty to drive slower. David, however, probably breached a duty of care by not looking before he changed lanes.
Top Tips for writing Law Essays
A reasonable and prudent person would naturally look before changing lanes. Here, however, David can claim two defenses. First, he can claim contributory negligence since Peter was speeding. See below for an analysis of Peter's liability. Second, David can claim the emergency doctrine. Since his swerving into the lane avoided an accident with Kevin, he was justified in making the split-second decision to swerve.
Ppt on eid festival essay
I think that under the duty of reasonable care analysis, David acted with the care of an ordinary and prudent person under the circumstances of an emergency. Therefore, David will probably not be found negligent in regard to Peter's claim. Even if he is found negligent, David's liability is limited if Peter is found to be liable for contributory negligence. As to Kevin's claim of negligence against David, it is arguable that David's action was the cause of the injury that occurred to Kevin.
Under the "but-for" standard of review, if he hadn't swerved into the other lane, he would not have sent Peter's car crashing into the phone pole. However, Kevin's claim against David probably loses on the issue of proximate cause.
Proximate cause limits the liability of David to those risks that were foreseeable. Here, I don't think that a telephone pole snapping in half and falling on top of a kid is a likely result from swerving into another lane in order to avoid the kid in the first place.
It is as improbable a result as that in Palsgraf.