The Negligence In Term Of Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

The Negligence In Term Of Law - Essay ExampleThe above definition has been interpreted from the case of Ryland. According to the Civil go 2002 Section 42, the first part of negligence is the duty of carethe standard of care essential of the defendant is that of a reasonable soul in the defendants position who was in possession of all the information that the defendant either had or ought reasonably to fuck off had, at the time of the incident out of which the ruin arose After ascertaining that there was a duty of care, the plaintiff has to prove that there was a breach of such duty, which resulted in an soil to the Plaintiff. In order to chip in negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff essential prove that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty by flunk to conform to the required standard of conduct, the defendants negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was, in fact, h armed or damaged.The defense of Marvin would be the appropriate precaution of assay, and before concluding that argument let us define and precaution of risk as covered in the ActA person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless (a) The risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known) and (b) the risk was not insignificant and (c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the persons position would have taken those precautions.... The defence of Marvin would be appropriate precaution of risk, and before concluding that argument let us define and precaution of risk as covered in the Act A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless (a) the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the person knew or ought to have known) and (b) the risk was not insignificant and (c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the persons position would have taken those precautions.4 Marvin has the defence of saying that he took enough precaution against the risk, but the pothole was in such a place that any other person in a similar situation would not have been able to avoid the accident. Along with this fact, the bike did not get damaged and Norton faced injury due to the fact that he had already been injured at the spot where he fell, which resulted in the pique of such injury. The right of Marvin is to sue the University of Canberra under the common law principle for not fetching enough precaution in order to avoid the pothole where the bike crashed. He can off the liability onto the college by arguing on the basis of negligence on the part of college through not maintaining the University campus in the right order. The liability of Marvin is the fact that his actions caused injury to Norton, and on top of that he was drunk man he was riding. He did not take enough care and precaution when he knew while creation drunk he should not have ridden the bike. Moving onto Norton, let us first deal with his liability. Norton was the ace who introduced Marvin for drinking to drown his sorrows. From this point it can be inferred that he was totally aware of what was