Allan carelessly drops a log in the road, and he does not bother to remove it. After dark, Ben’s horse trips over the log and is seriously injured. The purpose of tort law is to compensate the victim for harm caused by the activity of other. Is Allan liable for the injuries caused by negligence? Please state your reasons, the context of old tort (strict liability) and modern tort.

Allan carelessly drops a log in the road, and he does not bother to remove it. After dark, Ben’s horse trips over the log and is seriously injured. The purpose of tort law is to compensate the victim for harm caused by the activity of other. Is Allan liable for the injuries caused by negligence? Please state your reasons, the context of old tort (strict liability) and modern tort.

Similar questions

5-3 PROXIMATE CAUSE. Galen Stoller was killed at a railroad crossing when a train hit his car. The crossing was marked with a stop sign and a railroad-crossing symbol. The sign was not obstructed by vegetation, but there were no flashing lights. Galen’s parents filed a suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Corp. The plaintiffs accused the defendant of negligence in the design and maintenance of the crossing. The defendant argued that Galen had not stopped at the stop sign. Was the railroad negligent? What was the proximate cause of the accident? Discuss. [Henderson v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., __ F.3d __ (10th Cir. 2011)] (See Negligence.)
Jack Tupp contracts to work for Iona Carr Autohaus during February for $1,800. On January 17, Iona Carr Autohaus wrongfully cancels the contract. Jack Tupp refuses to accept a similar job with another car dealership which would have paid him $1,650. If Jack Tupp sues Iona Carr Autohaus, how much in damages would he most likely recover?
Explain the elements of the offence of murder. In what court would a murder trial be held, and explain the balance and burden of proof in such cases. In what circumstances can self-defence be relied on?
Discuss the concept of strict liability. Should this be applicable to businesses in product liability cases? Is this fair? What if a business is extremely cautious and yet a person is injured by the product? Why would it make sense to hold the business (who was not negligent) liable?
Case4 One afternoon, the plaintiff (P) and her husband were out driving for picnic together with their three children. They pull-over in a lay-by, a designated pave area beside a main road where cars can stop temporarily, for a picnic and the plaintiff took one of the children across the road to pick flowers. The defendant, Mr. Berry (D), was driving recklessly and crashed into the couple’s van, where the plaintiff’s husband and the other children were preparing. The plaintiff’s husband was seriously hurt by the crash and died at the scene a few hours later while most of the children suffered injuries. The plaintiff witnessed the entire event and its aftermath, developed long-term “morbid depression”, consequently. Please state the four basic elements of negligence. Plaintiff sued Mr. Berry for the cost and damages as a result from nervous shock that she suffered due to the negligence of the Defendant. Please state your reasons
27. Vicarious liability refers to a situation where: the employer is held legally responsible for actions of its employees the employer serves alcohol at company-sponsored events the onus is on the employer to prove it was not negligent none of the above
Assume for the purposes of this part of the question that Cherie is able to play, but trips and falls on some loose flooring and twists her ankle badly. One of the council employees tells her that the flooring has been loose for some time and should have been repaired. Explain the following: What is the legal case that Cherie could take against the Council? (Give full details of the principles and how they would apply in this scenario). If Cherie commenced an action, what remedies would she be seeking?
Lucy cannot stand the fact that her ex-husband, Ethan, is about to get remarried. After all, it was a horrible breakup, and Ethan was really mean to her. Lucy decides to get her revenge by telling Ethan’s employer that Ethan stole large amounts of money from his previous employer, even though Lucy knows it is not true. If Lucy follows through on her plan, she will have: a) not committed the tort of defamation because the statement would not harm Ethan’s reputation. b) committed the tort of defamation because it is an untrue statement intended to harm Ethan’s reputation, and she stated it to another person. c) not committed the tort of defamation, because she only made the statement to one person.
Business Tort of Negligence Dewayne, a driver for Speedy Delivery Company, leaves the truck's motor running in neutral and carelessly forgets to set the parking brake while making a delivery. The truck rolls and crashes into a nearby gas station pump, igniting a fire that spreads quickly to a construction site a block away. A burned wall collapses onto a crane, which falls on Fazio, a bystander, and injures him. What must Fazio show to recover damages from Speedy Delivery? If you are the attorney for Speedy Delivery what would be your best defense argument? Your paper should be between 500-750 words, with at least two cited external resources. View your assignment rubric. ROLK LOVE
Erin is a lawyer with twin sons that are 12 years old. Erin is resting in her bedroom when she hears loud noises in the family room. She springs up, runs to the family room, and sees one son, Phil, punch the other son, Kip. Erin immediately orders Phil to stay in his room for the rest of the day and to not use the internet for 48 hours. As Phil mopes along the hallway to his room, Phil shouts. "Kip punched me first!" What legal principle would Erin recognize Phil's remark as being? O ad hoc because Phil is adding an accusation against his opponent Kip. O in pari materia because Kip attacked in the same manner as did Phil O caveat emptor because Phil thinks he is right. O jus ad bellum because Kip's action is what actually started the fight (the "war") O in pari delicto because they (Phil and Kip) are at equal fault.
Judy, a citizen of New Jersey, was crossing a street in Memphis, Tennessee when a car driven by Ms. Wall, a citizen of Texas, struck her. Ms. Wall's employer, an Oregon corporation that has it principal place of business in Jersey City, New Jersey, owned the car. Judy sues both Ms. Wall and the corporation in the federal district court in Tennessee. Judy's complaint alleges damages in the amount of $150,000. Does this court have jurisdiction? Why or why not?
The torts of false arrest and false imprisonment are often confused. Explain the difference between false arrest and false imprisonment, and give a brief example of each.