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 .
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.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916) Judge Benjamin N. Cardozo which removed the requirement of privity of contract for duty in negligence actions. Martin v. Herzog, 228 N Y. 164, 126 N.E. 814 (1920) Tedla v. Ellman, 280 N.Y. 124, 19 N.E.2d 987, (1939) [3] on negligence per se, or the violation of a duty under a statute
The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of "pure" comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person. The decision of the court in Hoffman v. Jones has been cited in law school textbooks, and now the concept of comparative negligence is the prevailing doctrine.
In the United States, the Hand formula, also known as the Hand rule, calculus of negligence, or BPL formula, is a conceptual formula created by Judge Learned Hand which describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached (see negligence). The original description of the calculus was in United States v.
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]
The leading case in English law is Derry v.Peek, [2] which was decided before the development of the law on negligent misstatement. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v.Heller & Partners Ltd it was decided that people who make statements which they ought to have known were untrue because they were negligent, can in some circumstances, to restricted groups of claimants be liable to make compensation for ...