The Law of Torts Law Book Company

Question: Describe about The Law of Torts for Law Book Company. Answer: Video Case Study: Intentional Torts and Negligence The negligent torts in swimming pools are mainly to prove that the defendants have owed the duty of care with the avoidance of the careless actions which could cause harm to the person. Hence, there are standard of care with the reasonable person who holds the measuring situation to care about how one is owing the other person in the swimming pools. (Fleming, 1987). As per occupiers liability, the owner property need to take care of the children. The pool owners are under the attractive nuisance doctrine where they have the duty to prevent the access of young children to the pool as it could be a danger for them. Considering about the privacy torts, they have been have intrusion upon seclusion with public disclosure of some private facts of individual. The social media has been exploding the same in the recent years, and crossing their legal like into libel, through some online articles. The people read it and this results in exposure of the legal liabilities. (Speiser et al., 2003). Example: There have been a rising trend to post the photos of the food and the services online. This breach the privacy but could be a positive point for the places to take care of the quality of food, they provide, and it does not sue the person who posted it. With the changing time, there is a need to focus on the vicarious liability. The employer is legally liable for the actions of the employee when there have been problems related to the negligence in the work. Hence, for this, there is a need to focus on the working of the employees and their actions by guiding them, training them and giving a proper feedback for their work inorder to enhance the improvement and work quality. Video Case Study: Strict Liability and Product Liability The strict liability is for holding the liability for the injuries where they are negligent and careless that has led to the same. This allows the people who are injured by defective dangerous product in order to recover the compensation which is negligent. The product liability for the manufacturer or the seller holds under the Privity of contract which is based on holding responsibility for the defective product that cause lies with the sellers in the chain of distribution. The product should meet the basic customer expectations. (Traynor, 1964). As per the research, it is seen that McDonalds hot coffee could be the best example of frivolous case where there was a breach of the product liability and risks associated to the product quality. Considering the recent case for the Starbucks, it is not liability for all the spilled coffee that burned officer, according to the report from Los Angeles Times. (Frumer et al., 2015). It is important to analyse the different cases of negligence where the court needs to focus on the legalised duty of care for all the reasons, with the breach of the legal duty and other proximate and actual causation which are in between the conducts and harm. This is considered when the case is meritorious. It has been seen that 51% of the plaintiff version has been true which is completely different from the burden of crime without any doubt and has certainty. Reference Fleming, J. G. (1987).The law of torts(Vol. 1). Law Book Company for New South Wales Bar Association. Speiser, S. M., Krause, C. F., Gans, A. W. (2003).The American law of torts(Vol. 1). Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co..