Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The harm within the risk (HWR) test determines whether the victim was among the class of persons who could foreseeably be harmed, and whether the harm was foreseeable within the class of risks. It is the strictest test of causation, made famous by Benjamin Cardozo in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. case under New York state law. [10]
causation: the injury to the plaintiff is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act or omission. Some jurisdictions narrow the definition down to three elements: duty, breach and proximately caused harm. [6] Some jurisdictions recognize five elements, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. [6]
The resounding test attempts to reconcile the need for a control device, proximity of relationship, with foreseeability of harm. Lord Oliver's speech in Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman summarises the test for a duty of care: [19] The harm which occurred must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct;
Intentional torts are any intentional acts that are reasonably foreseeable to cause harm to an individual, and that do so. Intentional torts have several subcategories: Torts against the person include assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, although the latter is also an economic tort.
Whether the acts of a third party break the chain of causation depends on whether the intervention was foreseeable. [13] The general rule is that the original defendant will be held responsible for harm caused by a third party as a direct result of his or her negligence, provided it was a highly likely consequence.
Usually city government has a duty of care to repair and maintain the sidewalk. In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence.
A failure-to-warn claim is a staple of products liability litigation. The basic premise is that a manufacturer or seller failed to warn a consumer about an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm ...
However it is phrased, the essence of the degree of fault attributed will lie in the fact that reasonable people try to avoid injuring others, so if harm was foreseeable, there should be liability to the extent that the extent of the harm actually resulting was foreseeable.