The tort of negligence is doing something that a person using ordinary care would not do or not doing something that a person using ordinary care would do NEGLIGENCE means ID: 193089
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Titanic" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
TitanicSlide2
The
tort of negligence is:
doing something
that a person using ordinary care would not do, ornot doing something that a person using ordinary care would do.
NEGLIGENCE Slide3
means
the attention or skill that a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances. In order to prove negligence we must prove
four elements
: Ordinary Care
NEGLIGENCE
1. that there is a duty of care
owed
to a person;
2. a
breach
of that duty occurred;
3. there is a reasonably close casual connection that causes injury (proximate cause); and
4. that
injury causes
actual damage or loss.Slide4
fault
by the Plaintiff, which in conjunction with the negligence of
Defendant
, causes Plaintiff's injury. Any amount of contributory negligence bars recovery, even a minuscule amount of negligence.
Contributory negligence Slide5
FianceUnsinakble
Hans helped herOnly women & children
$25 a
wekkCarla
Christine Jensen's
Information Slide6
Increase the knots for a recordCrucial part of the trip
1 ice warning, later learned 3 warnings.
Captain Smith gave order of women & children
Told Jensen not necessary to help, but accepted itAlcoholCrowd controlJensen got in and then out of the boatOrdered the lowering
Second Officer
LighttolerSlide7
Class“Slight Interruption”Jensen rash/hanging over
AlcoholInterferring
JumpedSlide8
1912
The law applied in this case has some of the aspects of the law of New York during the year of 1912, which is much more pro-company than is today's law. For example contributory negligence is no longer an absolute bar to plaintiff recovering. Most states now use some form of comparative negligence so that negligence by the plaintiff reduces the amount that the plaintiff can recover rather than barring all
coverage
as happens with contributory negligence.