Peter can rebut the presumption of negligence by showing it was the custom to speed on that street; however, the fact that children were present would go to show that Peter had a duty of care to ignore the custom and slow down under those circumstances.
Kevin will be judged by the standard of what a reasonable and prudent nine year old would do when playing games in his own neighborhood.
First, he can claim contributory negligence since Peter was speeding. Even so, most kids are taught at an early age to look both ways before crossing the street. David Although David may have breached a duty in not looking when changing lanes, he has a defense in the emergency doctrine.
Furthermore, it did nothing to mitigate the danger by seeking to reinforce the pole with metal strips, to sink poles deeper in the ground or buy a harder type of wood.
To prove negligence, Peter has the burden to prove that David had a duty to drive more carefully. Proximate cause limits the liability of David to those risks that were foreseeable. I will examine the potential liability of each party in turn. Here, TeleCo was under a duty of reasonable care since it knew that its telephone poles would be placed along the sides of roads.
It is not necessary to show that a specific harm was foreseeable as it is that some harm was foreseeable. TeleCo Although it may not have been foreseeable for this accident to happen, I think that TeleCo is probably liable to Kevin for damages. David, however, probably breached a duty of care by not looking before he changed lanes.
Since the poles are commonly placed in neighborhoods, it is reasonable to conclude that a pole might fall on someone. Peter can also argue contributory negligence against both David for swerving and Kevin for running into the street.
One theory would be that David should drive slower than the speed limit when kids were present. The casual connection is closer than it was with David. Since his swerving into the lane avoided an accident with Kevin, he was justified in making the split-second decision to swerve.
The prima facie case for negligence is established by showing a duty of reasonable care, breach of the duty, actual and proximate cause and damage. Despite its duty to protect against potential harm, TeleCo did not do any testing to determine the danger involved in falling poles.
I think that it is foreseeable that when someone is speeding they might lose control and damage would result from that loss of control. Here, however, David can claim two defenses. Furthermore, it is foreseeable in a car accident where a pole falls, that an innocent bystander will get hurt.
Part 4 - The Written Answer The injured individuals can seek damages based on a theory of negligence. Since Kevin has shown damages, I think that TeleCo will probably be found negligent and liable for damages.
Although the emergency doctrine relieves David of liability, it does not confer liability on Peter. Here, it is less clear. It was foreseeable that a car might hit a pole with sufficient force as to knock the pole down.
I think that under the duty of reasonable care analysis, David acted with the care of an ordinary and prudent person under the circumstances of an emergency.
While the pole snapping was not foreseeable, the risk of some type of harm coming about was foreseeable.-level ompany Officer Prerequisites: None. Standard: omplete all summative tests with a minimum score of 80%. Identify the courses required for Fire Officer certification level ommand 1A Fire ommand 1 ommand 1 Fire Prevention 1 What is the importance of writing accurate NFIRS reports?
2. How would you affect change to improve NFIRS.
View hundreds of Company Driver resume examples to learn the best format, verbs, and fonts to use. Skip to primary navigation Accident-free safe Experience: 6 yrs.
Related: Transportation and Driver; i need car driver job. virender singh. Hi Virender, thank you for writing! We can help with that, here's a resume example for Car. The following example is meant to illustrate a typical question and suggest an approach on how you might outline the relevant issues and facts.
What follows is a sample outline to the problem discussed above. of Peter's liability.) Second, David can claim the emergency doctrine. Since his swerving into the lane avoided an accident with. (A-level from June ONLY) FORMAT DE L'EXAMEN DE A-level DE FRANÇAIS. Paper Thèmes: Durée: Notes % du A-level: 1 Listening, reading and translationS 2 Writing 3 Speaking - All topics from Years 12 & A-LEVEL TOPICS A 1 Quels sont les avantages de la mixité ethnique?
Risk Matrix Page 1 Risk Probability Risk Severity Catastrophic A 1A, 1B Acceptable after review of the operation.
Requires continued tracking and recorded action plans. Managing Directors, Risk Matrix Page 4 Moderate Accident or Incident with minor injury and/or minor aircraft damage. Programs Document of Example Technical Safety Requirements, Volume I, Examples, November Are staffing level requirements or other administrative limits considered in the facility modes?
accident control should be included in an administrative control. Fire detection and suppression equipment.Download