留学生赔偿法案相关论文写作参考 [5]
论文作者:英语论文论文属性:作业 Assignment登出时间:2014-10-23编辑:zcm84984点击率:10363
论文字数:3454论文编号:org201409161246086954语种:英语 English地区:马来西亚价格:免费论文
关键词:赔偿法案Law EssayCompensation Act侵权法
摘要:本文是一篇留学生赔偿法案相关的论文,主要是关于补偿文化,补偿文化的定义是指一个人因为他们受到了与这个伤害有关,或应该为其负责的人的损害、损失或伤害,他应该得到补偿,这种认知是一个社会完全认可的。
se Cathy owed a duty of care to Betty as she was a patient; here the causation chain has broken due to the incorrect injection given to the patient which makes the Nurse liable and Amir not liable for Betty’s death. The treatment given to Betty would be compared to the standard medical treatment of time which medical professionals approve of and that is done by using the Bolam test. This test arose from the case of [21] Bolam v Friern Hospital management committee 1957 and it was stated by [22] Judge McNair (if that failure or the doing of the act which results in injury then there is a cause of action).
The nurse failed to ask the patient if she had any allergies for the medication which is going to be given this shows that there has been a breach of duty of care and thus results in Amir not being liable for Betty’s death and no claim can be made towards him but if the Nurse can get a group of professional medicals and they carry out the same procedure then the Nurse is not liable and then Amir is liable but if not then she is responsible and the family can sue the nurse for being negligent in her duty.
Dev took the form of a rescuer even though the police told him to stay away but instead Dev went ahead to help the casualties at the scene and he was badly burnt. Dev had attempted to help people in an emergency situation where danger was in existence and therefore it is foreseeable that Dev is a victim and cannot claim for negligence as he decided with his own free will to enter into a situation where his own welfare was at risk. This is show in the case of [23] Cutler v United dairies 1933 where the claimant had a free choice. The case of [24] Haynes v Harwood 1935 also shows that the rescuer cannot claim for negligence by putting themselves at risk to aid others the other vital case which shows an importance is the case of [25] Baker v T E Hopkins and Son Ltd 1959 where the police had warned a rescuer to not get involved in the situation but the rescuer at his own free will chose to ignore this warning and went head and died looking at Dev’s situation he cannot claim for negligence against the police or Amir.
Gavin wasn’t present where the accident took place therefore isn’t able to claim this is shown in the case of [26] Bourhill v Chief Constable of south Yorkshire police 1992 as the claimant was a secondary victim and could not claim. Gavin saw his girlfriend in hospital after the accident he cannot claim in tort for this but if he was present at the scene of the accident even though he wasn’t directly involved with the accident (a secondary victim)then he could the case which shows this is the case of [27] McLoughlin v O Biren 1982.
It can be disputed that Harris lost his contract deal but the deal wasn’t guaranteed even if he was present at the meeting. By looking at the Caparo test the factors aren’t met in Harris’s case it was unforeseeable and Amir didn’t owe a duty of care towards that .The none-existence of duty of care being owed Amir cannot be liable and Harris wasn’t connected, the proximity lacked the case of [28] Bourhill v young 1943 represents this as there isn’t a close link. Lord Denning said in the case of Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co 1972 that economic loss is not to be recoverable and that the defendant is under no duty to the plaintiff so even though Harris has suffered an economic loss Amir cannot be held liable.
Imr
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。