torts assignment!! (1 Viewer)

[fuzzy]

i don't understand....how do you combine the statutory authority elements and nervous shock elements when working out the duty of care that a statutory authority owes to someone who also experienced nervous shock???

 

[fuzzy]

ok, this is just one section of the scenario: a contestant on a tv show gets despression or something after seeing another contestant go up in flames because of some faulty electrical connection. the film and tv authority (created by some statute) actually has the power to ensure safety, quality etc etc in the film/tv industry. they sent a notice to ch9 to check the connections but they didn't do it.
Ok, soooo, if we're meant to talk abt whether this authority owes any duty to the depressed guy then are we meant to talk about nervous shock? and if so, how??

 

[MoonlightSonata]

This put me off as well.. as in how you approach it

You've got duty of the statutory authority to exercise a power yes.. then the authority may have a duty regarding nervous shock.

But whether they should be treated individually, or whether the later is to be explored subsequent to the first..

 

[jessika]

do you only have that one assignment in torts?

 

[Newbie]

arghits too hard

 

[Lazarus]

Ok, soooo, if we're meant to talk abt whether this authority owes any duty to the depressed guy then are we meant to talk about nervous shock? and if so, how??

You just need to run through all the tests.

The authority is the subject of the statutory authority tests, and the plaintiffs are the subject of the nervous shock tests.

(They're both needed to establish a duty, but keep them separate.)

 

[theone123]

arghits too hard

i totally agreed

 

[Nick]

quit making me feel like theres more to it than i can see

it seems fairly straightforward to just go through all the tests etc..

surely theres nothing more to it

 

[stamos]

you also have to look up yr rogets and put in wicked awesome words like posit

shit i should start it instead of reading about how easy/hard it is on bos

 

[Nick]

you also have to look up yr rogets and put in wicked awesome words like posit

shit i should start it instead of reading about how easy/hard it is on bos

yeah.

its down there on the toolbar though, in all its exigencies

 

[fuzzy]

You just need to run through all the tests.

The authority is the subject of the statutory authority tests, and the plaintiffs are the subject of the nervous shock tests.

(They're both needed to establish a duty, but keep them separate.)

Huh? Hang on, that's funny...are you saying that there can be two diff duties at the same time?
Actually, I don't really get the nervous shock thing. Nervous shock is just one of the categories of negligence....right? So is it suppose to have its own duty test, like a test for a duty under nervous shock? And what exactly is this test? What happens to proximity? Where does the 'sudden sensory perception' thing go?
Sorry about all these questions. But I'm SO CONFUSED! ARGHH! I'm not called 'fuzzy' for nothing you know!
help me please!

 

[stamos]

yeah.

its down there on the toolbar though, in all its exigencies

that got a laugh even though i forget what exigencies means

 

[Nick]

that got a laugh even though i forget what exigencies means

i don't know what it means either

sounds good though, ill try use it in every sentence of my essay

 

[stamos]

i posit that it'll be fantastic

 

[Nick]

it will certainly be quite nebulously pernicious, prima facie

 

[Lazarus]

Huh? Hang on, that's funny...are you saying that there can be two diff duties at the same time?
Actually, I don't really get the nervous shock thing. Nervous shock is just one of the categories of negligence....right? So is it suppose to have its own duty test, like a test for a duty under nervous shock? And what exactly is this test? What happens to proximity? Where does the 'sudden sensory perception' thing go?
Sorry about all these questions. But I'm SO CONFUSED! ARGHH! I'm not called 'fuzzy' for nothing you know!
help me please!

No - I didn't mean to imply that there were multiple simultaneous duties.

You can think of it like this... the nervous shock tests are used to establish that each plaintiff was sufficiently proximate, and the statutority authority tests are used to establish that the defendant was sufficiently proximate. There can only be a duty between the two parties where both of them are proximate.

The term 'proximity' isn't really used anymore though. They're just additional duty tests, beyond reasonable foreseeability.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

You can think of it like this... the nervous shock tests are used to establish that each plaintiff was sufficiently proximate, and the statutority authority tests are used to establish that the defendant was sufficiently proximate. There can only be a duty between the two parties where both of them are proximate.

This seems like a very wierd description...

 

[Lazarus]

That's very helpful of you, Brent.

Okay.

The 'core test' used to establish a duty of care in a generic negligence action is the criterion of reasonable foreseeability. It must be reasonably foreseeable that a particular class of persons could suffer some sort of harm as the result of some sort of negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff must be a member of that class.

However, certain actions which are of a specific nature attract further tests. In such actions, these additional criteria must also be satisfied before a duty can be established. For example, a claim for damages resulting from nervous shock imposes tests which, among other things, require that the mental harm suffered be a form of psychiatric illness. A claim against a statutory authority might require a determination that the alleged negligent act of the authority be within the operational sphere and hence justiciable.

These auxiliary tests supplement the core test of reasonable foreseeability. If the action involves both nervous shock and a statutory authority, both sets of tests must be satisfied before a duty can be established.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

That's very helpful of you, Brent.

Okay.

The 'core test' used to establish a duty of care in a generic negligence action is the criterion of reasonable foreseeability. It must be reasonably foreseeable that a particular class of persons could suffer some sort of harm as the result of some sort of negligence on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff must be a member of that class.

However, certain actions which are of a specific nature attract further tests. In such actions, these additional criteria must also be satisfied before a duty can be established. For example, a claim for damages resulting from nervous shock imposes tests which, among other things, require that the mental harm suffered be a form of psychiatric illness. A claim against a statutory authority might require a determination that the alleged negligent act of the authority be within the operational sphere and hence justiciable.

These auxiliary tests supplement the core test of reasonable foreseeability. If the action involves both nervous shock and a statutory authority, both sets of tests must be satisfied before a duty can be established.

That is so much clearer

I vote we destroy the word 'proximity' from existence

 

[Newbie]

bags copy and pasting that one in