Sentences with phrase «of ordinary care»

A driver is negligent when he or she breaches the duty of ordinary care, and in doing so causes injuries to another.

The notice requirement is met if the unsafe condition existed long enough for the hotel to discover it in the exercise of ordinary care.

Simple negligence might be defined as the absence of ordinary care or making a mistake which leads to injuries.

Every state and even some municipalities have specific rules of the road, and breaking them is usually proof of a breach of ordinary care.

California defines «negligence» as actions or inactions which show a, «want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.»

They claimed that business owners always owe a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances to their customers, and that the foreseeability of any harm should not affect the existence of that duty.

Thus, if it's rainy or foggy, the duty of ordinary care dictates that a driver should drive slowly and apply the brakes earlier than under normal conditions.

The appellate court explained that to recover compensation in a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew or should have known about the danger and that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the danger, in spite of his ordinary care, due to actions or conditions within the owner's control.

Visitors to a private nursing home are usually considered invitees of the home; as such, the nursing owes them a duty of ordinary care for their safety.

A driver's duty of ordinary care consists in keeping the vehicle under control at all times so as to avoid hitting other vehicles, pedestrians, and any other people or property on or along side the roadway.

The landowner knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known that the condition of his property involved an unreasonable risk of harm to persons on the premises

Defined as a lack of ordinary care, negligence refers to the absence of the level of attention that would be considered as reasonably sensible and cautious.

Generally, business owners owe their customers, or «invitees,» what is called a duty of ordinary care under the circumstances.

For example, if you were driving at 75mph in a 55mph zone at the time of the accident, the other driver can easily prove that you probably breaching the duty of ordinary care.

Negligence, under the law, is a lack of ordinary care.

Constructive Knowledge This can be a little more complicated, as constructive knowledge is inferred by the court if Landowner puts forth no evidence of a «reasonable» inspection procedure to comply with its statutory duty quoted above) and (2) that, despite the exercise of ordinary care, Plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard due to actions or conditions within the Landowner's control.

Under California Civil Code Section 1714 (a), a person is responsible not only for a willful act which causes injury to another, but also for the lack of ordinary care or skill in managing property.

Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that: (a) The dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition; or (b) The condition occurred with regularity and was therefore foreseeable.

Negligence is the lack of ordinary care; that is, the absence of the kind of care a reasonably prudent and careful person would exercise in similar circumstances.

Since the duty of ordinary care is that which a reasonable person would have used in circumstances similar to the accident, the ordinary duty of care can vary according to circumstances such as:

This may be actual notice — that is the landowner is aware that there is a broken stair, for example, or that someone spilled a bottle of olive oil in the grocery store aisle — or it may be «constructive notice» — that is, a responsible owner, in the exercise of ordinary care would or should know of the dangerous condition.

A fundamental principle of negligence law is that «Every one is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself.»