Negligence [wiki]
The legal burden of proving these elements falls upon the plaintiff. The elements in determining the liability for negligence are:
Yes if tree was known to be rotten/ ill maintained
If floor soapy because cleaner forgot to wash it away then sue cleaner + owner.
LTA responsible 100% provided she was keeping reasonable lookout and wasn't speeding to begin with and all lights were in her favor (green).
Blinking amber faulty traffic light sign does not apply here.
Yes if MC did not respond in a timely manner despite being informed or if MC deliberately contravened building code by jamming the emergency bell, not maintaining the lift etc.
Yes for damages provided she can prove reservation and can prove the damage caused which shouldn't be unreasonable. Mediation is advisable here rather then court action.
In so far as she can prove the injury to be due primarily to "Dereliction or breach of that duty" (of care) by the theme park.
Can also sue- herself: for choosing to climb Everest w/o adequate training / experience (though this is physically impossible according to your description of the climb).
I don't think that Keppel should be 100% responsible in this case as mentioned, only to the extent that the poor lighting and ill-placed sand caused the fall.
Since it is assumed that Mdm Tan had ostensibly previously used the same stairs in the upwards direction prior, Mdm Tan should have been careful the same on her way down.
Assuming Mdm Tan were indeed able to prove on the balance of probabilities that the "Dereliction or breach of that duty" (of care) caused her injuries, Mdm Tan should at most get 50% compensation given to the fact that she "had the choice of using an alternative sloping walkway with handrails if she had deemed it too dangerous to use the stairs" having already used them on the way up previously and if significant, Mdm Tan would have noted the poor lighting and so chosen the "sloping walkway with handrails" instead.
Legal cost to be determined based upon final judgement.
Just my provisional assessment: there would be many fact I don't know other than this report however.
The legal burden of proving these elements falls upon the plaintiff. The elements in determining the liability for negligence are:
- The plaintiff was owed a Duty of care
- There was a Dereliction or breach of that duty
- The tortfeasor Directly caused the injury.
- The plaintiff suffered Damage as a result of that breach
- The damage was not too remote; there was proximate cause.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by maxmaxmax  Re: Woman sues developer after she falls at show flat later she walked and tree branch crashed on her head then how? then sue National Parks? |
Quote:
| later she walked along Orchard Road then slip how? sue who? later she go shopping centre slip how? sue shopping centre? |
Quote:
| later she drive and she crashed becos of faulty traffic light then sue LTA? |
Blinking amber faulty traffic light sign does not apply here.
Quote:
| later she took lift and lift stuck for hours and she stressed then sue management committee right? |
Quote:
| then later she made reservation at restaurant and she went there and discovered no seats then how? sue restaurant mgt right? |
Quote:
| then she go Water theme Park and flip flop and broke more teeth then how? sue Theme park management right? |
Quote:
| then if go Mt Everest and climb sure guarantee all teeth will come out, arms and legs sure kanna broken, head probably severed, intestines sure come out . |
Quote:
| for goodness sake, open eyes big big. we are not old old. so use common sense and walk carefully. don't need to use rocket science brain to walk carefully lah. |
Since it is assumed that Mdm Tan had ostensibly previously used the same stairs in the upwards direction prior, Mdm Tan should have been careful the same on her way down.
Assuming Mdm Tan were indeed able to prove on the balance of probabilities that the "Dereliction or breach of that duty" (of care) caused her injuries, Mdm Tan should at most get 50% compensation given to the fact that she "had the choice of using an alternative sloping walkway with handrails if she had deemed it too dangerous to use the stairs" having already used them on the way up previously and if significant, Mdm Tan would have noted the poor lighting and so chosen the "sloping walkway with handrails" instead.
Legal cost to be determined based upon final judgement.
Just my provisional assessment: there would be many fact I don't know other than this report however.
===============
At:
A1forum:
08Nov2011: Woman sues developer after she falls at show flat
No comments:
Post a Comment