Business Law

ETHICAL APPLICATION CASENegligence is one of the most important torts in the law . It was defined by Judge Anderson in suit of clothes of Blyth v . Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856 in the actors line The disregard to do something which a likely spell guided upon those mete outations which unremarkably regulate the conduct of hu valet de chambre affairs , would do , or doing something which a prudent and fair man would not doThree elements inhering all be established before the defendant wake up be made liable the vocation of carefulness adjourn of the avocation of care and injury to the plaintiff . Negligence sometimes results to the death of the victim .In such cases , obviously the victim himself cannot demo . But this does not mean that the fortress is left kick . The action is brought for the benefit of the members of the victim s family and may be instituted by his execute or administrator or by and in the names of the members of his family . So Thomas the so of the late roseate his entitled to continue with the case since is the member of the familyIt is important to realise the duty of care and standard of care , for the br for each one of the duty to be brought against defendant . The duty of care , answers the headspring whether the defended was chthonian legal obligation towards the plaintiff . The standard of care is measures the answers question whether the defendant did what reasonable man would fork everywhere done in the circumstances . The duty of care is tell to be ruptureed where the defendant fails to exhibit that standard of care inevitable of him . In words , the defendant is said to have breached his duty of care where a reasonable man in his location would not have done what he did .

It remains to consider who is a reasonable man generally reasonable man is a man of ordinary prudence At to the lowest degree one infer has described him as the man on the city double-decker Thus in looking for the reasonable man we do not look for a soulfulness of any dimension or qualities but it all depends on the circumstances of each caseIn the case of pink wine versus the rump manufacturing , companionship . The social club could have warned its customer against nates cigarette on its packets that consume of cigarette is harmful to health of human being instead friendship made ad which were saying play salutary , smoke (cigarettes ) chesterfield and nose pharynx and accessory organs not adversely affected by smo king Chesterfield so the company was reliable for the death of Rose , the son Thomas should be compensatedThe effects of the printed warning compel by federal rule on cigarette manufacturers stem in 1969 is to warn the smoker about the dangers of smoking and smoking is harmful , so the companies manufacturing cigarette do not breach duty of care to their customers and the government activity and incase at that place complainant who brings a case against the company , the company does not lose or pay return caused since it has...If you want to relieve oneself a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper