Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Negligence per se is a doctrine in US law whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation). The doctrine is effectively a form of strict liability . Negligence per se means greater liability than contributory negligence .
Whenever a monetary judgment is issued by a Virginia court, the clerk of the court will automatically issue a fi fa once twenty-one days have passed from the entry of the judgment (this is the period of time that the losing party before the court has to obtain relief from the court in the form of a reconsideration or reduction in the judgment ...
Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in United States tort law which arises where one party ("the entrustor") is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party ("the entrustee") with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality.
Courts that follow Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view.
Res ipsa loquitur (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation.
The doctrine of contributory negligence was dominant in U.S. jurisprudence in the 19th and 20th century. [3] The English case Butterfield v.Forrester is generally recognized as the first appearance, although in this case, the judge held the plaintiff's own negligence undermined their argument that the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury. [3]
In order to recover from an auditor under common law negligence theory, the client must prove: [6] Duty of care; Breach of Duty; Losses; Causation; CPAs may defend against a breach of contract if they can prove that the client’s loss occurred because of factors other than negligence by the auditors.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas observed that the facts did not support a claim of negligence. Rather, the Court noted, the facts clearly supported a claim of an intentional injury by the defendant and it was evident that the claim had been cast as "negligence" solely to obtain insurance coverage.