Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The duty of care is a legal framework concept within the tort law that poses profound insight regarding property owners’ responsibilities. Although title deed holder faces proficient mandate to certain individuals, it is crucial to determine the distinction of the various parties. One of the entities is an invitee who is implored to access the premise by the landowner while a licensee obtains implicit access to the estate regardless of the allowance from the possessor (Plunkett, 2018). In a different spectrum, a trespasser is a person without the right to enter a chattel. The clear distinction fosters the prominent effect of establishing inherent accountability in the case of accidents and injuries among people within specific holdings.
In the case study of Tom, there is a necessity to incorporate the tort law due to the relative association of Tom’s incidence as an injured party in the category of the licensee. Tom is a banker with a license to visit old man McDonald’s farm for the inspection of the investment and the viability regarding the pay-offs. Upon arriving at the premises, the old man approaches Tom while in his car and warns him against strolling around since there is a bull on the loose, and it is known to charge against people. However, Tom alights from his car and walks around. Although Tom fails to encounter the bull, he falls into a newly poured cement pit, and his body is discovered the next day. On the one hand, Tom knew a significant risk involving the chance of facing a violent bull within the farm. On the other hand, the old man fails to fully inform the licensee regarding the cement pit. As a result, it is crucial to establish the integral value of the attained insights and the relation to the incidence not known to Tom.
Negligence is an entity within the Tort legal framework that involves the interplay of dynamic elements among the participants. According to the law, it is the mandate of the property owner to develop cautionary measures for the invitees and licensees, such as closing up spots posing imminent danger to the personnel (Fraley, 2018). In Tom’s case, old man McDonald neglects the duty of care for the characters within the premise by failing to properly seal the cement pit as a forewarning among people. Therefore, there is reasonably foreseeable harm, proximity essence, and the justified imposition of liability (Abraham & Kendrick, 2018). The satisfaction of the dynamic conditions affirms the concept of obligation. The old man is accountable for enhancing the safety of the dwellers within the holdings as the landowner.
In conclusion, negligence is a multidimensional phenomenon that poses a critical impact on the amenability among different parties. One of the significant factors of consideration encapsulates the property owner’s responsibility to invitees and licensees. Abandoning the duty of care based on incorporating sustainable practices risks the well-being of personnel hence the prominence towards establishing dynamic measures. Tom’s life is endangered due to the lack of installing approaches preventing certain adversities. The sealing of the cement pit is an initiative that proficiently contributes to the prevention of accidents. Different American states postulate various Tort laws and definitions. However, the vital common facet entails the protection of life and healthy living. The emergence of shortcomings that threaten welfare demands fairness and justice for the victims while alleviating unprofessionalism within the spectral view of culpabilities.
References
Abraham, K. S., & Kendrick, L. (2018). There’s no such thing as affirmative duty. Iowa L. Rev., 104, 1649.
Fraley, J. M. (2018). Liability for Unintentional Nuisances: How the restatement of torts almost negligently killed the right to exclude in property Law.W. Va. L. Rev., 121, 419.
Plunkett, J. (2018). The Duty of Care in Negligence. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.