Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Recovery of damages by a plaintiff in lawsuit is subject to the legal principle that damages must be proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant. This is known as the principle of proximate cause. This principle governs the recovery of all compensatory damages, whether the underlying claim is based on contract, tort, or both. [5]
Negligence (Lat. negligentia) [1] is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. [2]Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a negligent act or failure to act.
Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) is a US tort law case regarding negligent misstatement, decided by Cardozo, C.J. It contained the now famous line on "floodgates" that the law should not admit "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."
Comparative negligence – A partial defense that reduces the amount of damages a plaintiff can claim based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the damages. Most jurisdictions have adopted this doctrine; those not adopting it are Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, And Washington D.C.
In establishing the basis of the case, Baron Alderson, made what has become a famous definition of negligence: Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
By contrast, the civil law of German-speaking countries does not differentiate between delict (Delikt) and quasi-delict (Quasidelikt) as do French and Roman law.Under German Deliktsrecht, or ‘law of delict’, claims for damages can arise from either fault-based liability (Verschuldenshaftung), i.e. with intention or through negligence (Fahrlässigkeit), or strict liability ...
The floodgates principle, or the floodgates argument, is a legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims and lawsuits. [1]
The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). The case's main significance is that, after the shift within the common law of negligence from strict liability [1] to a reasonable standard of care, [2] this case advocated a middle way, namely: