Rule of Law
Basically, to bring and establish a charge of negligence, or to bring an action of negligence, there are certain conditions which needs to be fulfilled. 1stly that there was a duty to take care (Mark Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority, Doing Business as Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 1998), 2ndly that duty to take is breached, 3rdly due that breach of duty to take care, the injured party suffered harm, i.e. there is a causation on the part of the de-fendant, due to which the plaintiff or the claimant suffered the loss, and finally the compensation of the harm or the injury so caused to the plaintiff lies in damages. So, in the present facts of the case Jennifer needs to establish that the teacher owed her a duty to take care (Ruth MARKOWITZ and David Lee Markowitz v. ARIZONA PARKS BOARD and State of Arizona, 1985), and that duty to care is not done by him or her, i.e. say, the teacher is in breach of the duty to take care. Again, Jennifer have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the breach on the part of the teacher is the proximate cause of her suffering from the stated harm. Finally, Jennifer have to establish the fact that she herself was careful and took reasonable care, so as not to invite the harm upon her, and also, she needs to establish that she did not voluntarily assumed the risk of suffering from the stated harm.
Again, there was the necessary forms and waivers that was signed by all the students, and there was also a caution from the teacher to them, that they need to be careful. But, on the contrary no sane person will waive of their right and happily surrender to harm, unless that harm saves their lives, as in the case of operation, where the doctors makes the patient sign the declaration, that if any fatality strikes in or if there is any kind of unforeseeable harm caused to the patient at the time of the operation, then the doctors cannot be held liable (VITALY TARASOFF v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 1976), since they were on the mission to save the lives of the patient from far more severe danger. But, that is not the case, it was only a school excursion, the students went, and Jennifer was stuck by a sea urchin. But, again to bring the liability on the teacher, Jennifer must show that there was a sea urchin, which the teacher must have seen and did not caution her, for not touching it. But, that is unreasonable, how on earth a teacher will be aware that, Jennifer will get attracted to the sea urchin, and will possibly get stung by it. So, it is Jennifer’s duty to take appropriate and reasonable care for herself, for which she is also dutybound, and if she would have taken enough care of her self then she possi-bly would not have got stung by the sea urchin and in so doing she cannot be held of contrib-uting towards her own negligence and causing herself harm (NGA LI v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA , 1975). But, she actually contributed towards her own harm and hence is liable for contributory negligence. A contributory negligence is an area of tort, where the sufferer or the aggrieved party or the victim, did not take the duty of reasonable care, which every person owes towards himself or herself, and in so doing have contributed towards the own harm (GUSTAV SCHMITT v. DORIS F. HENDERSON, 1969).
But, to bring the school, i.e. City Middle School, under the liability of negligence, she has to first know, whether the school is public or private, since the government school have certain im-munities towards any kind of legal action. Again, from the facts of the case it is clear that she actually lingered the harm for several days and only informed the teacher, when the infection has already started, there again the teacher cautioned her to inform her parents, which she again due to whatever reason did not in the right time, and finally got her amputated. So, she is in no posi-tion to bring an action of negligence, against the teacher, since she herself have contributed to-wards the negligence and have caused her harm, and also that she did not take the reasonable care, a man of common prudence would have taken, being in the same position like her (STATE of Maine v. Kenneth P. JONES, 1956).
But, if she did not have contributed towards the negligence, and if she could have proved and establish that the teacher owed her a duty to take care, and that duty to care is not done by him or her, i.e. say, the teacher is in breach of the duty to take care and that the breach on the part of the teacher is the proximate cause of her suffering from the stated harm, and lastly if she could have established the fact that she herself was careful and took reasonable care, so as not to invite the harm upon her, and also, if she can establish that she did not voluntarily assumed the risk of suffering from the stated harm, then yes this is a case of negligence and there is a cause of action as against the teacher. So, then the teacher could have defended himself or herself, by the basic two defenses of negligence, i.e. the contributory negligence and the voluntary assumption of risk. To show that Jennifer have contributed towards the negligence, the teacher must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that she was not careful and it is due to her negligence, that she herself suf-fered harm. But, the other defense of voluntary assumption of risk will not be a plausible thing to do, since she possible could not have consented in getting stung by a sea urchin, due to no valid reason at all.
Place Order For A Top Grade Assignment Now
We have some amazing discount offers running for the studentsPlace Your Order
CHARLES RAYMOND v. PARADISE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF BUTTE COUNTY, 218 Cal.App.2d 1 (1963) (Court of Appeals of California, Third District. 1963).
Donoghue v Stevenson,  AC 562 (House of lords 1932).
GUSTAV SCHMITT v. DORIS F. HENDERSON, [S. F. No. 22688. (Supreme Court of California 1969).
Mark Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority, Doing Business as Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 92 N.Y.2d 348 (1998) (New York Court of Appeals 1998).
Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174, 178, 759 P.2d 455 (1988) (1988).
NGA LI v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA , L.A. No. 30277 (Supreme Court of California 1975).
Ruth MARKOWITZ and David Lee Markowitz v. ARIZONA PARKS BOARD and State of Arizona, 146 Ariz. 352 (1985) (Arizona Supreme Court 1985).
STATE of Maine v. Kenneth P. JONES, 126 A.2d 273 (1956) (Maine Supreme Judicial Court 1956).
VITALY TARASOFF v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, S.F. No. 23042 (Supreme Court of California 1976).