Sentences with phrase «where negligent acts»

Our proud and respected law firm has achieved monumental results in motor vehicle accident, truck crash, medical malpractice and other incidents where negligent acts of another made a happy go lucky individual into a partially, or permanently disabled victim.

That is hardly surprising, in that obstetrics is one of the very few areas of medicine where a negligent act has the ability to injure two or even three people, and where such injuries can be life changing and lifelong in terms of their consequences.

Not exact matches

In terms of joint enterprise, this was summed up by Elias LJ as being that, «where a character of the joint criminal enterprise is such that it is foreseeable that a party or parties may be subject to unusual or increased risks of harm as a consequence... and the risk materialises, the injury can properly be said to be caused by the criminal act of the claimant even if it results from the negligent or intentional act of another party».

As will become clearer when we discuss the cases, «material contribution» as a substitute for the usual requirement of «but for» causation only applies where it is impossible to say that a particular defendant's negligent act in fact caused the injury.

The Court believed that the situation fell within the pre-existing class of duties which entailed liability if «a public authority... negligent [ly] fail [ed] to act in accordance with an established policy where it is reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so will cause physical harm to the plaintiff.»

As will be discussed in more detail below, this can occur in cases where it is impossible to determine which of a number of negligent acts by multiple actors in fact caused the injury, but it is established that one or more of them did in fact cause it.

Where the person who causes a motor vehicle accident is acting within the course and scope of employment, or is driving a company vehicle, there is potential for recovery of damages not only against the negligent driver, but also against the employer.

Accident and injury lawsuits involve a situation where a person has been injured due to the negligent, intentional, or careless acts of other people or a corporation.

Under the Occupiers» Liability Act, the persons or entity responsible for the property where you were injured only have to be found to be negligent.

Contributory Negligence Contributory negligence refers to circumstances where a person suffers injury or loss in part through the negligence of another person, and in part by his or her own negligent act or omission.

In a case where medical science can not establish the probability that «but for» an act of negligence the injury would not have happened, but could establish that the contribution of the negligent cause was more than negligible, the «but for» test is modified, and the claimant would succeed.

Negligent acts of utility companies that cause gas explosions, electrocutions or electrical shock injuries in places where people live and work.

This can occur in cases where it is impossible to determine which of a number of negligent acts by multiple actors caused the injury, but it is established that one or more of them did in fact cause it.

(9) Where a proceeding to which subsection 193 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act applies is tried with a jury, the judge may direct the jury to specify negligent acts or omissions that caused the damages or injuries in respect of which the proceeding is brought.

Welcome to Chanfrau & Chanfrau, where we help clients who have suffered losses due to others» negligent acts.

This «exclusivity» rule discussed above does not apply where injury or death results from the negligent act or omission of someone, or something, other than your employer.

This protection does not apply, however, in cases where the victim was a child younger than 6 years of age, or if the attack was proximately caused by a negligent act or omission on the part of the dog owner.

Where a driver loses control of the car and causes an accident as a result of bad weather conditions, the court may find that they were negligent in not acting with extra caution.

According to the Court's decision, the «commercial activity» exception to the Act is limited to cases where the activity which constitutes the «gravamen» of the defendant's allegedly negligent conduct is «based upon» commercial activity.

As noted by Andrew Smith J, the authorities did not clearly establish the correct test of causation where a lawyer is negligent in forming his opinion upon legal or other questions in order to advise or to act for his client.

The authorities did not clearly establish the correct test of causation where a lawyer was negligent in forming his opinion upon legal or other questions in order to advise or to act for his client.