Sentences with phrase «establishing breach of duty»

This is known as establishing a breach of the duty of care.

Proving a traffic violation is only the first step in establishing a breach of the duty of care.

The other message that burns brightly throughout HHJ Hodge QC's judgment is that establishing breach of duty is only one hurdle professional negligence litigators have to overcome: failure to prove causation means nominal damages; nominal damages means adverse costs; adverse costs means more pain for the client; and there is no need for a crystal ball to anticipate that inevitable conclusion.

In R v Chargot Ltd [2008] UKHL 73, [2008] All ER (D) 106 (Dec) the House of Lords adjudicated on the burden that the prosecution bears in order to establish a breach of duty under ss 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work (etc) Act 1974 (HSWA 1974).

Not exact matches

Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.

Finally, the injured person must establish that your breach of duty (see above) is the direct and proximate cause of the injury in question.

Update 3: Action - adventure Call of Duty next year, Activision establishes dedicated business unit for the franchise Update 2: Infinity Ward CEO no longer with the studio Update: «The Company is concluding an internal human resources inquiry into breaches of contract and insubordination by two senior employees at Infinity Ward,» Activision states in a recent SEC filing (cheers, G4).

In order to establish medical malpractice, the injured patient must demonstrate the following: i) the ophthalmologist owed a duty of care to the patient; ii) the ophthalmologist breached the duty of care owed to the patient by providing negligent or substandard care; and iii) the ophthalmologist's breach was a direct cause of the patient's injury.

Limoges argued that the expert's affidavit was sufficient to establish duty and breach, particularly at the summary - judgment phase of the proceedings.

In Connecticut, a plaintiff has to establish four elements in order to prove negligence in a personal injury case: duty, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages.

Acted for the Te» mexw Treaty Association intervening at the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to whether the trial judge erred in finding Aboriginal title was established, whether the Crown breached its duty to consult and accommodation, and whether provincial laws of general application apply to Aboriginal title land.

The second element — the breach of duty — can be difficult to establish.

The appellate court upheld the finding that there was enough evidence to establish that Entergy was in breach of its duty of reasonable care for persons on its premises.

Lawyers explained that this threat to the very livelihood of the members of the Coldwater Band caused the duty to consult to be breached, and constituted a breach of the Crown's fiduciary obligation the Band in relation to the band's established reserve interest.

In Connecticut, a plaintiff has to establish four elements in order to prove negligence in a personal injury case: duty, a breach of that d...

You need to establish that there was a duty of reasonable care to be extended to others such as other motorists which was violated or breached by the defendant.

The motorcycle rider who was injured by the Los Angeles jumper will have to establish that the jumper had and breached a duty of care and, as a result, he suffered injuries.

Breach of duty was therefore well and truly established.

Under Canadian tort law, a plaintiff has to prove five elements in order to establish negligence: (1) that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) that the defendant breached the applicable standard of care; (3) that the plaintiff suffered damages; (4) that these damages were the result of the defendant's breach (causation); and (5) that the resulting damages are not too remote.

For Rouleau J.A., where the interference with individual liberty is not rationally connected to the duty being performed (preventing breaches of the peace, property damage, and the risk of personal injury) or is otherwise not an effective means to perform that duty, necessity will not be established.

In these types of cases, the violation of the law itself is considered equivalent to a breach of duty and establishes that the defendant was negligent.

Negligence Claims in New Mexico In New Mexico, to bring a negligence claim an individual must be able to establish that the wrongdoer owed him or her a standard duty of care, that the other driver breached that duty, and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the accident victim's injuries and damages.

In both North and South Carolina, a plaintiff who is trying to prove negligence must establish the defendant's duty of care to the plaintiff, a breach of duty, a link from the breach to the plaintiff's injuries, and actual damages.

One of the most often contested elements in New Mexico auto accident cases is establishing that the defendant breached the duty of care he owed to the plaintiff.

In any accident case, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant owed him and breached a specific legal duty of care.

Formally, to establish a claim for negligence, the victim must demonstrate: (1) the defendant had a legal duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) the defendant breached that duty; and (3) the plaintiff sustained damage that was proximately caused by the defendant's breach.

To establish that a wrongful death occurred, an attorney must prove that the individual had a duty of care to the deceased, their act or omission breached that standard of care, their wrongful actions were the proximate (direct) cause of the injury or death of the decedent, and damages resulted.

A consent order can be vitiated if it can be established that there has been misrepresentation, mistake, breach of the duty of full, frank and clear disclosure, fraud or undue influence.

In addition to establishing a doctor or other medical professional's duty and breach of the duty of care owed to a patient, the testimony of medical experts may also be relied upon to establish the cause or causes of a patient's injury or death and the damages suffered by the injured patient or the deceased patient's survivors as a result of the injury or death.

Under Georgia law, a plaintiff in a negligence action must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the basic elements of negligence, which are duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages.

The claimants were able to establish that the system — taken in its entirety — was unfair; and thus the Lord Chancellor had breached the common law duty of fairness.

To establish a case, the injured party (the plaintiff) must show that the truck driver or other defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances; the defendant breached or failed in that duty; that this breach was the cause of the plaintiff's injury; and that the plaintiff was harmed.

In a negligence claim, the plaintiff must establish the elements of duty, breach, causation, and damages.

A premises liability action (also known as «slip and fall accident») is like other negligence actions, in that you, as the plaintiff, are required to establish the defendant had a duty of care, that duty was breached, and that breach of duty resulted in your injuries.

Even if the plaintiff has strong evidence to establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused the injuries, the defendant still has the right to raise defenses that may eliminate or at least reduce his liability.

This means that the plaintiff may satisfy the duty and breach elements of a negligence claim brought against the driver by establishing the driver's violation of the applicable rule or law.

Therefore, in order to recover for negligence in security, a plaintiff must establish that 1) he or she was owed a duty, 2) there was a breach of that duty, 3) that the alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and 4) that there was a resulting harm to the plaintiff.

In order to establish negligence in a civil suit, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to exercise a reasonable standard of care, that it breached that duty, and that breach was the cause of the accident and the resulting injuries and damages.

Employers will be liable if the employee can prove negligence by establishing that the employer breached the duty of care owed to the employee and this breach of duty caused the employee to suffer recoverable loss.

In Halton Elementary Unit of the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (O.E.C.T.A) v. Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (O.E.C.T.A.), 2013 CanLII 9950, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (the «OLRB») dismissed four duty of fair representation complaints brought by groups of individual teachers and two district Presidents against OECTA, holding that they had failed to establish a prima facie case that there was a breach of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Once breach of duty has been established, you must prove that the defendant's actions led to the death of the deceased person.

You would need to establish the distracted driver's duty to use reasonable care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damages.

At paragraph 82, the SCC noted that an actionable wrong can be established with a breach of a distinct and separate contractual provision or other duty such as a fiduciary duty.

To establish negligence, you would need to prove that the other driver breached a duty of care and in so doing, caused an accident that resulted in quantifiable costs and losses.

Acted successfully for the appellant Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in a landmark Supreme Court judgment establishing that damages in procurement claims are only available if any breach of duty is «sufficiently serious» within the meaning of the EU law conditions for Member State liability.

Prudential Staff Pensions Ltd v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [2011] PLR 239 — Proceedings for directions on a large number of issues (including issues of estoppel and potential breach of the employer's duty of good faith) following a change by Prudential in its long - established policy of granting discretionary RPI linked increases to pensions in payment;

The Specific Claims Tribunal determined Williams Lake had established the validity of the claim against the federal Crown: there were pre-emptive purchases of the lands by settlers, in contravention of colonial policy and law; such contraventions constituted a breach of a legal obligation, pursuant to colonial legislation pertaining to reserved lands; B.C. failed to act honourably and was in breach of its fiduciary duties at common law, by failing to put the Indian interest in settlement lands ahead of settlers» interests; Canada was liable for B.C.'s pre-Confederation breaches of legislation and fiduciary duty, pursuant to the Act; and Canada also breached its post-Confederation fiduciary duties by failing to provide reserve lands to Williams Lake.

To establish negligence, you would need to prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, which was breached, causing an accident and injuries.

He held there was no breach of duty and insufficient causal link to establish a claim.

This in turn may mean that in lower value claims some litigants will find practitioners unwilling to invest the required time and money to establish liability, unless the breach of duty is patently gross.