So at the very least I strongly assert that Zimmerman should be held liable under res ipsa loquitur: In the common law of negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing itself speaks") states that the elements of duty of care and breach can be sometimes inferred from the very nature of an accident or other outcome, even without direct evidence of how any defendant behaved. Although modern formulations differ by jurisdiction, the common law originally stated that the accident must satisfy the following conditions: A "duty" exists for a person to act "reasonably"; and A "breach" of this duty occurs because a person [or agency, etc.] acted outside this duty, or "unreasonably"; and There was "causation in fact"...the result would not have occurred "but for" the "breach" of this duty; There was actual legally recognizable harm suffered by the plaintiff who did nothing wrong (i.e., no contributory negligence). Upon a proof of res ipsa loquitur, the plaintiff need only establish the remaining two elements of negligence—namely, that the plaintiff suffered harm, of which the incident result was the legal cause. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_ipsa_loquitur
Posted on: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 05:12:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015