So I understand when understanding if someone is negligent you must determine:
Duty of care
Standard of care
Causation
My book then talked about foreseeability. I understand this but dont understand where this fits. Is this in the standard of care? The person may have not met the standard but it was not foreseeable? Or is this the last step all on its own. Please help, thanks.
Law-Tort Law Negligence question?
2014-07-13 2:15 pm
回答 (3)
2014-07-13 6:08 pm
It means that a person who acts negligently is only responsible for those damages that can be reasonably anticipated to flow from the negligent conduct.
Example: You drive you car like an idiot (negligently). As a result, you hit another car, and the other car is damaged. You are responsible for the damage to the other car, because hitting another car is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of driving like an idiot. But say someone witnesses the accident, runs to get help. stops at a store along the way and gets a drink, gets poisoning from the drink, and dies. You are not liable for the death of the witness. Even though you caused the witness' death (the witness would still be alive had you not been a negligent driver), the circumstances of the witness' death was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of driving like an idiot.
Example: You drive you car like an idiot (negligently). As a result, you hit another car, and the other car is damaged. You are responsible for the damage to the other car, because hitting another car is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of driving like an idiot. But say someone witnesses the accident, runs to get help. stops at a store along the way and gets a drink, gets poisoning from the drink, and dies. You are not liable for the death of the witness. Even though you caused the witness' death (the witness would still be alive had you not been a negligent driver), the circumstances of the witness' death was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of driving like an idiot.
2014-07-13 2:44 pm
The breach of duty owed has to be the legal cause of the injury or damage. The foreseeability issue happens a lot when trees are involved. if you have a dead tree on your property and it falls on someone you are liable since you know the tree is dead and can fall. If the central trunk of your tree is eaten away by beetles, but the tree is still alive, you cannot foresee that the tree will fall and injure someone.
2014-07-13 2:20 pm
If you don't understand the question, ask your teacher. That's what HE gets paid for.
收錄日期: 2021-04-20 19:49:39
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140713061500AAbf2sk