Proving negligence

The main elements of negligence have been distilled from this statement in various cases over time. In order for a person (the plaintiff ) to prove negligence by another (the defendant ), he/she must show ... 

The EC Directive on liability for defective products [4] was adopted in 1985. According to the directive the producer is to be held liable for damage caused by a defect in his product. It is based on a strict liability regime, ie, one does not have to prove negligence or fault to be able to get compensation. What the injured party has to prove, is the existence of the danuge, the defect of a product and the causal relationship between the damage and the defect (Art. 4). 

The Law now allows consumers to initiate civil actions independent of the authorities and removes the need for consumers to prove negligence in a legal action. 

Strict liability was established in the European Union to protect consumers (users and operators) from defective products. Directive 85/374/EEC changes the old approach of proving negligence to a new emphasis of strict liability on the manufacturer s part. Consumers can now initiate civil actions themselves, without the need to prove negligence. All producers involved in the production process are liable, insofar as the finished product, component, or raw material they supply is defective. The consumer can take simultaneous action against all parties involved in the supply chain. Moreover, the directive does not set any financial ceiling on the manufacturer s liability. 

Contributory Negligence If a plaintiff could prove negligence on the part of an employer and show assumption of... 

Operating under the Second Restatement of Torts, Section 402A, a plaintiff in a strict liability lawsuit does not have to prove negligence. The behavior of the defendant is irrelevant. The defendant caimot show how well he operated his quality control or product safety program to prevent defects. A defendant caimot present how a quality design process created a safe product. Those may all be good practices, but they are defendant behaviors and do not apply in strict liability cases. 

The onus of proving negligence or breach of statutory duty and that this failure was the cause of the accident rests on the plaintiff except where the facts of any accident are such that the accident would not have occurred without negligence. This is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur whereby the defendant must prove that the accident could have occurred without negligence on his part, for example see Scott v. London Dock Company [1865] 3 H and C 596. For a more modern approach to this concept and a discussion of the problems involved see Ward v. Tesco Stores [1976] 1 All ER 219. 

We choose pH values, calculate C, and then use i and ot.2 to estimate [CaHP04] and [CaH2P04] from equations (ll-5d) and (11.5e). The [CaHP04] proves negligible (assuming no solid CaHP04 is present). Using the conditional constant 4.85, we calculate the second complex with equation (11.5e),... 

The adversarial legalistic nature of FELA can work against a safe workplace. FELA requires injured employees prove negligence by the railroad. In addition, employees must defend themselves against arguments that they were contributorily negligent. If employees can show that the injury resulted from a violation by the railroad of federal safety laws, such as the requirements for car handholds under the... 

Under Civil Law (Tort), individuals can claim compensation if they can show that a duty of care was owed, this duty has been breached, and that a loss has been suffered. An example of this process is illustrated in Fig. 1.1. Plaintiffs have to prove that they were owed a duty of care, that there was a breach of that duty, and that the loss or damage was a direct result of that negligence. The claimant does not have to prove negligence on the part of the supplier. All professional work is done under contracts containing either an express or implied term that professional persons will use reasonable skill and care in the performance of the work. 

---