Sentences with phrase «considered negligent acts»

Not exact matches

When a person or entity fails to act reasonably, they may be considered negligent and may be responsible for any harm they cause, even if by accident.

Being negligent is when you've acted in a way that's considered thoughtless, careless or contrary to how a normal person would act in a similar situation.

For a property owner to be considered negligent and liable for your damages, they must have acted unreasonably or without the prudence that a reasonable person would display in a similar situation.

Section 51 (7) defines wasted costs as costs incurred by a party as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative or which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred the court considers it unreasonable to expect that party to pay.

Various acts and even failing to act are considered negligent.

A truck driver may be considered negligent if they did not act carefully to prevent your injuries while they were behind the wheel.

But when that mistake costs the life of a loved one, or causes you great physical, emotional, or financial harm, that action should no longer be considered a mistake but a negligent act.

Injuries that are the result of an accident or negligent are not considered willful acts.

In other words, if a person acted in a manner that others would not consider reasonable, failed to follow boating safety rules and was not mindful of the safety of their passengers and other boaters, he or she could well be considered negligent, therefore liable for the injuries sustained by others.

This term describes an act that is considered to be negligent in and of itself because it violates a law meant to protect the public, such as a speed limit.

As the judge correctly stated, this involved considering how Levicom would have acted in the hypothetical circumstances that Linklaters» advice was not negligent: Levicom had to show how they would have acted on the balance of probabilities, and also that there was a substantial chance that the Swedish companies would have agreed to settle on terms that Levicom would have accepted.

That involved considering how the claimant would have acted in the hypothetical circumstances that the defendant's advice was not negligent: the claimant had to show how they would have acted on the balance of probabilities, and also that there was a substantial chance that the Swedish companies would have agreed to settle on terms that the claimant would have accepted: Allied Maples Group v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907.

Some acts are considered inherently negligent, with no requirement to prove the negligence was known or intended.

Failure to act upon this standard is not only considered to be negligent, but can be extremely dangerous and in some circumstances, fatal.

That's the beauty of Sacramento renters insurance, it makes sure that you're protected from the poorly considered negligent and criminal acts of others.

If an employer's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts could be considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.