Sentences with phrase «unreasonable risk of»

Also, «knowledge of a condition which involves unreasonable risk of physical harm to persons on the land may not be imputed to a landlord merely from general knowledge that other properties of like age, construction, or design might possibly contain such hazardous conditions.

A landowner owes a duty of care to invitees or licensees to be aware of any conditions that might pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee or licensee, to anticipate that the invitee or licensee may not be able to discover or realize the risk of harm, and therefore to exercise reasonable care in preventing the invitee or licensee from suffering the harm.

Requires a plaintiff to show by «clear and convincing» evidence that a defendant «acted with malice or has shown a reckless and outrageous indifference to a highly unreasonable risk of harm and has acted with a conscious indifference to the health, safety and welfare of others.»

They must also be able to show that the owner of the vehicle should have known that the person using the car would create an unreasonable risk of harm.

The undisputed evidence is that the road Fordham was driving on posed no hazard to a driver who stopped at the stop sign, or even to one who slowed to 50 km per hour at the intersection... Does the condition of the road pose an unreasonable risk of harm to reasonable drivers?

Negligence in a personal injury case means conduct that falls below the standard of care required to protect others (or yourself) from the unreasonable risk of...

Second, it must be clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury, and the plaintiff must have suffered that form of injury.

In that case, the plaintiff was struck by a golf ball on a golf course, which the court ruled did not constitute as an «unreasonable risk of harm.»

Furthermore, the court ruled the evidence presented did not establish the city had actual or constructive knowledge that the trail presented an unreasonable risk of harm to the rider.

The FDA notes that a medical device safety alert should be issued if a device may present an unreasonable risk of substantial harm.

(b) A person commits an offense if, having custody, care, or control of a child younger than 15 years, he intentionally abandons the child in any place under circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm.

Rather, a municipality will only be held liable for failing to clear the road of snow or ice where it had «actual or constructive knowledge that road conditions created an unreasonable risk of harm to users of the highway».9

As noted above, for a road to be in a state of non-repair, it must present a hazard that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to ordinary, non-negligent users of the road in the circumstances.

Negligence refers to a party's failure to act in a way that an ordinarily prudent person would act under the circumstances to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm.

She pled that its governmental immunity was waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act (the TTCA) because the injuries had been caused by a property defect that presented an unreasonable risk of harm, about which the county had actual knowledge and she didn't, and for which the county should be held accountable under Texas law, as it would be if it were a private property owner.

Municipalities should consider the circumstances and determine if the condition of the road poses an unreasonable risk of harm to reasonable drivers.

[19] As an added protection to the manufacturers, it will be the trial judge's responsibility to determine whether an injury constitutes an «unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injuries.»

[20] The court went on to define recklessness as an act performed while knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize that his or her conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another and that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.

Balancing these competing interests, the court held that, «a brand - name manufacturer that controls the contents of the label on a generic drug owes a duty to consumers of that generic drug not to act in reckless disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury.»

Specifically, in Rafferty v. Merck & Co., Inc., [4] the SJC held that plaintiffs who ingest the generic form of a drug may bring failure to warn claims against the brand - name manufacturer of the drug if the brand - name defendant acted recklessly by «intentionally fail [ing] to update the label on its drug while knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk of death or grave bodily injury associated with its use.»

Unless you can prove that the owner of the property knew there was an unreasonable risk of damage (for example, that a dead tree limb had been hanging in the tree for months prior to the storm), you won't be able to sue to have anybody else pay for the repairs to your car.

A property owner or occupier has a duty to warn licensees of dangerous conditions on the property that create an unreasonable risk of harm if the property owner or occupier knows about the condition and it is not likely to be discovered by the licensee.

As a licensee, your friend had a duty to warn you of dangerous conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm if the conditions were known to the friend, but not likely to be discovered by you.

When consumers purchase products for their use, they rightfully expect those products to be safe to use as intended and not present an unreasonable risk of injury.

Negligence is any conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others and is actionable when that risk creates a legally cognizable injury.

The textbook definition of negligence is «conduct that falls below a standard of behavior established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.»

In all jurisdictions, negligence means conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to other people.

A dangerous condition has to present an unreasonable risk of harm to those on the property and must be a condition a reasonable person would not have expected — in other words, not an obvious, avoidable hazard.

Second, it must be clear that the defendant breached a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, thereby exposing the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury and that the plaintiff suffered harm from that injury.

The rule states that a possessor of land is liable for harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition on the land if (1) the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass in that place, (2) the condition is one the possessor knows or has reason to know and should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children, (3) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk, (4) the utility of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the risk to children involved, and (5) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect children (Restatement (Second), 2 Torts 339).

Under the negligence theory, a defendant is held liable for the results of actions, or inaction, when an ordinary person in the same position should have foreseen that the conduct would create an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

The motivation behind the theory of liability is that a person may be negligent in allowing another person to use a vehicle if the vehicle owner has reason to know that the individual will likely use the vehicle in a way that involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

The CPSC alleges that LG intentionally failed to report a defect and an unreasonable risk of serious injury with several models of dehumidifiers, even though it is required by federal law.

There was a condition of the landowner's property which presented an unreasonable risk of harm to persons on the premises

This duty includes the duty to manufacture and design products that do not pose an unreasonable risk of burn injury to a child.

In a December 3, 2012 merits removal order, the family court found Mother placed Child at a substantial risk of harm of physical neglect and returning Child to Mother's home would place Child at an unreasonable risk of harm.

These theory opines that property owners owe varying degrees of duty to protect lawful visitors (and sometimes even lawful visitors) from unreasonable risk of harm.

Like any driver, a car manufacturer certainly has an obligation to the public to design and manufacture cars that are safe and do not pose an unreasonable risk of harm.

The appellate court explained that the elements of a premises liability claim are: (1) there was actual or constructive notice to the owner of the defects causing the injury, (2) the defects created an unreasonable risk of getting hurt, (3) the property owner failed to use reasonable care to get rid of or reduce the risk, and (4) the property owner's failure to utilize reasonable care was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

[34] In Resurfice, this Court summarized the cases as holding that a material contribution approach may be appropriate where it is «impossible» for the plaintiff to prove causation on the «but for» test and where it is clear that the defendant breached its duty of care (acted negligently) in a way that exposed the plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of injury.

The amendment says neglect does not include permitting a child to engage in independent activities if the child «is of sufficient age and maturity to avoid harm or unreasonable risk of harm.»

Other interim status designations the Obama EPA assigned to new chemicals or uses indicated they were set either for «standard review,» as unable to be reviewed because of «insufficient information available» or as possibly presenting «unreasonable risk of injury.»

These four types of chemicals, the EPA said, raise «serious environmental or health concerns» and in some cases «may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment.»

Not surprisingly, the media feeding frenzy has resulted, anecdotal evidence suggests, in a sharp drop in youth football registrations for this fall's season, with parents fearful that playing football will almost inevitably expose their kid to an unreasonable risk of injury (which, of course, is patently untrue; more than 7 million kids in the U.S. currently play football, very few of whom, statistically speaking and despite a few well - publicized cases - are likely to end up committing suicide because of the hits they sustained playing the sport, and millions upon countless millions who have played football over the past century without apparent ill effect).

«If an employer knows a particular person's abusive conduct places employees at unreasonable risk of sexual harassment,» the judges wrote, «the employer can not escape responsibility to protect a likely future employee victim merely because the person has not previously abused that particular employee.»

Consumer Product Safety Commission www.cpsc.gov / Government organization charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.

The CPSC is charged with protecting consumers from unreasonable risks of injury, death and property damage from thousands of types of products which cost our nation more than $ 1 trillion dollars annually.

Typically, various national or local institutions will alert consumers about unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products via product recalls.

CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.

The Appellate Court wrote that, «The possessor's [of land] right is therefore bounded by principles of reasonableness, so as to cause no unreasonable risks of harm to others in the vicinity.»