Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In common law, battery is a tort falling under the umbrella term 'trespass to the person'. Entailing unlawful contact which is directed and intentional, or reckless (or, in Australia, negligently [1]) and voluntarily bringing about a harmful or offensive contact with a person or to something closely associated with them, such as a bag or purse, without legal consent.
A plaintiff must establish all five elements of the tort of negligence for a successful medical malpractice claim. [11] A duty was owed: a legal duty exists whenever a hospital or health care provider undertakes care or treatment of a patient. A duty was breached: the provider failed to conform to the relevant standard care.
In tort law, there are generally five areas in which transferred intent is applicable: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. Generally, any intent to cause any one of these five torts which results in the completion of any of the five tortious acts will be considered an intentional act, even if the ...
Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person (see below), trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.. Trespass to the person historically involved six separate trespasses: threats, assault, battery, wounding, mayhem (or maiming), and false imprisonment. [1]
Medical malpractice is a legal cause of action that occurs when a medical or health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, deviates from standards in their profession, thereby causing injury or death to a patient. [1] The negligence might arise from errors in diagnosis, treatment, aftercare or health management.
Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.. Trespass to the person comes in three variants: assault, which is "to act in such a way that the claimant believes he is about to be attacked"; [1] battery, "the intentional and direct application of force to another person"; [2] and false ...
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (Cal. 1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient.
Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. The case involved an incident that occurred on February 20, 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 11-year-old boy, George Putney, while the ...