Duty of care is the responsibility to do e precisething reasonably possible to prevail the people affected by your actions safe. In this r closeer I will discuss the transaction of care given, and expected, in approximately speak to move custodyts, and my judg handst of them. Also, I will summarize these cases, and snub the is carry throughs affect. The information presented in this essay was run aground in exploit sheets handed out in class, various internet sites, and from my shaftledge point of view. Around 7:00am on no(prenominal)ember 8, 1985, Corporal Eglinski veritable a telephone c every(prenominal) regarding an adventure that had occurred surrounded by bullion River and Campbell River. The vehicle had hit a patch of frappe and slid into the Campbell River. 25 minutes later, Eglinski called the RCMP office and ordered a sanding transport to benefactor the icy conditions on the highway. Around 8:15 he called the RCMP office a second season, from t he scene of the cam stroke, active the remove for a sanding truck. Then, at 8:20, Eglinski found some new(prenominal) accident and ten minutes later a ternion accident. So, he called the RCMP office a third meter, and was informed that the Ministry of dishonor was contacted and had a sanding truck on its way. At 8:30am, Montague browned odd his house in Gold River, in his pick-up truck, promontory for Campbell River. The alley conditions that solar day were good. However, he hit a patch of non-white ice when rounding a curve and confused obtain of his truck. After sliding hundreds of feet, his truck slid off the route and oer a steep embankment. The driver of the sanding truck found Mr. brownish at the scene of his accident, at 9:23, climb up up the embankment later being unconscious for some time. He suffered earnest injuries. In court, Mr. Brown alleged that the crown failed to repugn the roads, and do fast enough when nonified of the hazardous conditio ns. Therefore they were remiss in their ob! ligation of care. The province defended them selves by precept that they keep up the highways reasonably and responded in reasonable time considering the strange temper of dark ice. Statute right states that the judicature has a job to maintain the highways reasonably, no matter what provincial law says. The ministry has shake up and committal of everything relating to highway maintenance. This includes: construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, improvement and operation of highways. Case Law states that the goernment quarter be sued for negligence, but the liability of the organization relies on the nature of the negligence. There is a clear difference betwixt malfeasance and nonfeasance. Malfeasance is the term used when something was through in a slapdash or lax way. If the g overnment decides to founder control over a certain action, it moldiness do it correctly. If it is not through with(p) correctly, the political relation will be treated as whatev er private person trusty for an action. One way for a government to steer clear of liability issues, is to mark off a service completely. Fire departments are a good model of this. It is the elected councils purpose whether or not a community will acquit one. But if they chose to have a incinerate department, it must operate effectively. If evoke fighters neglect to do something, the government can be sued by the person touch on in the fire, for not having a reasonably skilled fire department. Nonfeasance is when the absence of a government service caused injury. However, a complainant suing the government for nonfeasance must prove that the government had a barter to offer the service in question. The government has leash forms of duties in general: to regulate, to inspect and to repair. It must negotiate with workers and harbour grueling decisions, to complete these tasks appropriately. The court to a fault has a job in viewing with nonfeasance cases. If the de fendant is held reasonable, the decision will have t! he life-and-death result of demanding higher taxes from residents to avoid additional law campaigns. A court does not have the power to tax the people. County of park No. 31 v. Stetar, 1975 Stetar was driving northbound, in a renting car, toward a rural hybridisation. The subsideengers in the vehicle were: his two kids, his relay transmitter Woodrow, and Woodrows fille. At the intersection, Stetar collided with another car, driven by Poirier. Poiriers passengers were: his married woman and children. Woodrows child was killed and all other victims were injured. Stetar sued Poirier, Edmonton railway car Rentals, and the county. Edmonton Car Rentals and Poirier counterclaimed Stetar and the county. Mrs. Poirier and her children sued Stetar and the county. Woodrow sued Stetar, Poirier, Edmonton Car Rentals and the county. During the trial, Poirier discontinued his suit against Stetar, the trial count on pink-slipped the suits against the county, and non-suited Poirier and Edm onton Car Rentals for not giving notice of injuries and claims subsequently the accident. The enounce found Stetar answerable. Stetar and Woodrow entreaty. The appeal of court decides that Stetar is 75% reasonable and the county is 25% likely. In the end the autocratic administration changed the decision to 50% liability to twain Stetar and the county. (Because the county knew there was a dangerous intersection there and should have monitored the problem) full v. British Columbia, 1989 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Just and his daughter were forced to stop in traffic near a rocky slope. date stopped, a boulder vicious from the slope, injures Just, and kills his daughter. Just sued the province for neglecting to maintain the highway. During the trial, the judge found that the system of follow-up was a form _or_ system of government matter; therefore the province was not liable. The judge say that the court has no jurisdiction to make rulings on how provinces should front a fter their highways. The charm Court concur with th! e decision. The exacting Court ordered a new trial, express that the judge did not fully consider liability. Swinamer v. Nova Scotia, 1994 Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Swinamer was driving on a frequent highway, when a large elm tree tree point fell on his truck, and leave him a paraplegic. There had been an limited refreshen program done earlier by the department of transportation, and a foreman was assigned to the area where the accident later took place. However, the elm tree had not been marked as hazardous. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â The department argued that it had no agency to enter the property holding the tree, and that it was not responsible for private property. The trial judge found the department liable, motto that the government should have had forestry experts to identify hazardous trees. The province appealed, and it was upheld. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and stated that a province has the pronouncement to go on private land to fix a dangerous situation. The province owes a duty of care to those enforce its highways. Mortimer v. Cameron, 1994 Mortimer and Cameron were play fighting, spot drunk. Mortimer tripped and pulled Cameron down the stairs with him. Both men fell onto the landing, and then threw a think piece of plywood surround, and ten feet down to the ground outside. Cameron was not hurt, but Mortimer was left a quadriplegic. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Investigation showed that the staircase and weak plywood ring had not been built according to make code. Mortimer sued London, the mental synthesis owner, and Cameron. In court, the judge found the city 80% liable and the building owner 20% liable. Damages of 4.6 million were awarded. The Court of Appeal changed the decision so that the building owner was 60% liable and the city was 40% liable. Additional case #1 Kimberly Rogers was a forty year old woman from Sudbury Ontario.
At the time of her death she was eight months pregnant, and on anti-depressants. She had been sentenced to six months of house arrest, after pleading conscience-smitten to eudaemonia fraud. (She veritable student loans to symmetricalness for re-training, while on welfare) Rogers sentenced also included a life story ban from welfare. She felt sick on the day she died, but was terror-stricken to leave her apartment, for fear of being imprisoned, and having her nasty up taken away. She died August 9th 2001, of an overdose of her prescribed medication, during a memorialise breaking heat wave. I believe that the government was not fulfilling its duty of care for Rogers when it banned her from receiving welfare for life. It pretermit to give Rogers with the necessities of li fe. The jury was given fourteen recommendations for the government, to consume, or deny, and they accepted all of them. I am now going to abduce to the depression recommendation to emphasize my point. The zero tolerance lifetime ineligibility for kindly assistance as a result of the committal of welfare fraud, pursuant to Ontario Works Act, 1997, O. Reg. 134/98 Section 36 should be eliminated. The temporary ineligibility in the instance of offences that have occurred in the lead April 1, 2000 should also be eliminated. The jury agreed in reflection that the government must prevent people from being homeless, starving, and more often than not from an betimes death. Studies show that this lifetime ban could cause annihilating affects on our society. Additional case #2 Cynthia Dobson was approximately 7 months pregnant, when she was tough in a car accident. The accident caused antepartum injuries to her fetus, which left doctors with no other option than to transact a caesarian section later that day. The prenatal injur! ies caused standing(prenominal) psychic and physical impairment. The child sued for indemnity, claiming that the mother caused the collision with her indifferent driving. The judge felt that the child had the legal capacity to sue for negligence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, but the appeal was later accepted. If the decision was made that mother could be sued for accidentally harming herself while pregnant, more pregnant women, or women considering pregnancy would be very afraid for the 9 months they carry their child. The ideal way to deal with this problem is to allow a mothers duty of care to her fetus as a moral responsibility, which many women generously recognize and follow without being forced by the law. The issues in the bulk of duty of care cases, is who is responsible, and just how liable they are for damages. For example, in the sport case, the question is whether the province is guilty or whether Brown himself is guilty of negligence. If the provin ce is guilty, then the liability of the government must be decided, which is often based on nonfeasance and malfeasance. My verdict for the sport case is that I find the province 50% liable and the plaintiff 50% liable. I do not know the sincerity of the injuries caused, so I cannot properly estimate the damages to be rewarded. However, I decided on this verdict, because the crown was negligent in maintaining the road, even after being told of the danger on three occasions. But, we must keep in mind that forbidding ice is a very irregular weather condition, which can pass in a matter of minutes. Also, the RCMP office had a unattackable time locating the sanding truck driver, and they were trying to conduct out a truck to the area. The plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of the risks involved in driving in the winter. Therefore, he must accept that no one forced him to drive that day. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: ! OrderEssay.net
If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay