random liability law Essay -- essays research papers

WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER? A. A plaintiff who was injured as as result of some negligent conduct on the part of a defendant is entitled to recover compensation for such injury from that defendant.A plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if jury finds1. That a defendant was negligent, and2. That such negligence was a cause of injury to the plaintiff. Q. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct we set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the exceptionally skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge, he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of his or her action or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence. Q. HOW CAUTIOUS MUST SOMEONE BE? A. The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. Q. CAN I ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE CAREFUL AND FOLLOW THE LAW? A. Every person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care, has a right to assume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate an accident which can occur only as a result of a violation of law or duty by another person. Q. WHAT ROLE DOES A LOCAL CUSTOM PLAY IN DETERMINING IF SOMEONE IS CAREFUL? A. Evidence as to whether or not a person con... ... Strict Liability Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part. The plaintiff must show only that the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant's hands in order to prove liability on the part of such defendant. The behavior or knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of a products liability defendant regarding the dangerous nature of a product is not an issue for consideration under a strict liability theory. Strict liability concerns only the condition of the product itself. In contrast, a negligence theory concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer's knowledge and conduct. "Strict liability", however, does not mean "absolute liability". Simply because a person is injured, he or she cannot assert strict liability and automatically recover. Instead, the injured consumer in asserting strict liability, still must prove his or her right to compensation by showing that the unreasonable dangerous condition of the product was what actually caused the injuries sustained. random liability law Essay -- essays research papers WHEN IS A PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER? A. A plaintiff who was injured as as result of some negligent conduct on the part of a defendant is entitled to recover compensation for such injury from that defendant.A plaintiff is entitled to a verdict if jury finds1. That a defendant was negligent, and2. That such negligence was a cause of injury to the plaintiff. Q. WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is the doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do, under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.Ordinary or reasonable care is that care which persons of ordinary prudence would use in order to avoid injury to themselves or others under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. The person whose conduct we set up as a standard is not the extraordinarily cautious individual, nor the exceptionally skillful one, but a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence.One test that is helpful in determining whether or not a person was negligent is to ask and answer the question whether or not, if a person of ordinary prudence had been in the same situation and possessed of the same knowledge, he or she would have foreseen or anticipated that someone might have been injured by or as a result of his or her action or inaction. If the answer to that question is "yes", and if the action or inaction reasonably could have been avoided, then not to avoid it would be negligence. Q. HOW CAUTIOUS MUST SOMEONE BE? A. The amount of caution required of a person in the exercise of ordinary care depends upon the conditions that are apparent or that should be apparent to a reasonably prudent person under circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence. Q. CAN I ASSUME OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE CAREFUL AND FOLLOW THE LAW? A. Every person who, himself, is exercising ordinary care, has a right to assume that every other person will perform his duty and obey the law, and in the absence of reasonable cause for thinking otherwise, it is not negligence for such a person to fail to anticipate an accident which can occur only as a result of a violation of law or duty by another person. Q. WHAT ROLE DOES A LOCAL CUSTOM PLAY IN DETERMINING IF SOMEONE IS CAREFUL? A. Evidence as to whether or not a person con... ... Strict Liability Strict liability is different from a negligence theory in that the injured plaintiff need not show knowledge or fault on the manufacturer's part. The plaintiff must show only that the product was sold or distributed by a defendant, and that the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time it left the defendant's hands in order to prove liability on the part of such defendant. The behavior or knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of a products liability defendant regarding the dangerous nature of a product is not an issue for consideration under a strict liability theory. Strict liability concerns only the condition of the product itself. In contrast, a negligence theory concerns not only the product, but also the manufacturer's knowledge and conduct. "Strict liability", however, does not mean "absolute liability". Simply because a person is injured, he or she cannot assert strict liability and automatically recover. Instead, the injured consumer in asserting strict liability, still must prove his or her right to compensation by showing that the unreasonable dangerous condition of the product was what actually caused the injuries sustained.