English Torts Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

English Torts Law - Essay Example The defendant is required under English Torts Law on negligence to compensate the claimant by payment of damages or fine or by heeding an injunction as duly determined by the court. This should effectively deter people from being careless in the conduct of their duties. In a way this intends to enforce a standard of behaviour, to protect the life, welfare, and interest of unwilling victims of another person’s act of negligence. This principle on negligence is not new. In Bible times, the Divine Law dictates that a man could be deemed guilty by his negligence: â€Å"In case you build a new house, you must also make a parapet for your roof that you may not place bloodguilt upon your house because someone falling might fall from it.† –Deuteronomy 22:8, The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. Negligence Defined "Negligence  is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of hum an affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might have been liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done." (Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works English Torts Law on Negligence The Torts Law particularly on negligence has its own precedence from the Divine Law itself. Negligence is one of those torts in which damage must be proved. Once a breach of duty has been established, the claimant must therefore also show that the breach has resulted in injury or damage (the causation issue) and that the injury or damage is sufficiently closely connected to the breach (the remoteness issue). The Tort of Negligence developed in 1932 beginning with the case of Donoghue v Stevenson which established the Duty of Care owed by manufacturers to end consumers. The following elements must be established to warrant the claim of negligence: 1. There must be a Duty of Care between the claimant and the defendant. 2. A clear breach in the Duty of Care is established. 3. Such breach resulted to some damage to the claimant. 4. There is no applicable defence to the defendant. Duty of Care In the first negligence case (Donoghue v Stevenson), Lord Atkin spoke of the backbone of the duty of care known as the neighbour principle by saying that defendant must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen would possibly injure a neighbour, one who would closely or directly be affected by any acts or omissions. Lord Atkins stated that: â€Å"You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected w hen I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question†. The case of Caparo Industries plc v Dickman in 1990 gave rise to the Caparo three-way test, which is the modern day test for determining duty of care: 1. It is reasonably foreseeable that the claimant may be harmed by the defendant’s failure to observe reasonable care. 2. The relationship of the claimant and the defendant indicates a sufficient relationship of proximity or remoteness. 3. It is fair, just and reasonable to impose on the defendant a duty of care towards the claimant. In 1934 Lord Wright said: â€Å"In strict legal analysis, negligence means more than heedless or careless conduct, whether in omission or commission:

Human Resources Managment Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Human Resources Managment - Assignment Example It can be noted in this case that the employer discriminated Michael Roberts on the basis of race by virtue of being an African American since other white guys with less experience were hired for the same job. The McDonnell-Douglas test is applicable to this particular case, according to the US Legal (2013), â€Å"Mcdonnell Douglas test refers to a legal principle requiring a plaintiff (employee) to prove with evidence of employment- discrimination. The test also requires a defendant (employer) to prove with evidence showing that the employment action complained was taken for non discriminatory reasons.† Being the judge in the above mentioned case, I will rule in favour of the plaintiff given that a case of racial discrimination against Michael Roberts exists since he did not get the job as a result of being an African American while other whites with less experience were hired for the same position. 2. The African Americans in this case can sue for disparate impact under Titl e vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the Freedictionary (2013), disparate impact is a theory that prohibits the employer from using facially neutral employment practices that have an unjustified effect on protected classes. As aptly shown in the case study, African Americans were unfavourably treated when it comes to securing technical employment. Only 60 % of those who wrote the test were selected while 80 percent of the whites who wrote the same test were selected. However, the employer can use â€Å"business necessity† clause to refute the allegations levelled against him. If this practice is really necessary to the operations of the organization, then the employer would not have any case to answer. It is also important for the plaintiffs to prove that they are a protected class under this legal provision. Failure to do so may render their case invalid. 1. Sue Pappas applied for a position of an attendant for a psychiatric institution. However, she does not succeed in getting the job as a result of her obesity. Before she sues under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), she has to prove that she has a disability. â€Å"The ADA defines disabil ­ity as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activ ­ity; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impair ­ment,† (Reiter, 1). Under ADA, obesity is excluded hence Sue cannot win this particular case. However, ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) has broadened the definition of disability to encompass a lot of other biological functions of the body. Since she cannot perform all of the major life activities because of her obesity, she can sue the employer under the ADAA since it can be seen that she has been unfairly discriminated. Her past experience shows that she can perform this job well so there is no reason for this employer to deny her the opportunity to get this job. Assignment 2 Job Title: Marketing comm unications officer Position Purpose: The purpose of this position is to maintain a clear communication strategy for the marketing department as well as the organization as a whole. The candidate will communicate vital information to