When liability exists without proving negligence, it is referred to as "strict liability." In strict liability cases, a party can be held responsible for damages or injuries resulting from their actions or products, regardless of whether they acted negligently or took precautions. This legal standard often applies in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products. The focus is on the nature of the activity or product rather than the conduct of the defendant.
Professional negligence called MALPRACTICES.
Professional negligence called MALPRACTICES.
'THEORY'
The doctrine you are referring to is called "res ipsa loquitur." This legal principle applies in negligence cases where the nature of the accident is such that it implies negligence on the part of the defendant, even without direct evidence. Essentially, it allows a plaintiff to establish a presumption of negligence based on the circumstances of the incident, suggesting that the event would not have occurred without someone's failure to exercise reasonable care. This doctrine shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to demonstrate that they were not negligent.
negligence
it is called proving
it might be called proving
Negligence
This is known as contributory negligence or comparative negligence. Contributory negligence applies when the plaintiff's own actions contributed to their injuries, potentially barring them from recovering any damages. Comparative negligence, on the other hand, allows for a partial recovery based on the degree of fault attributed to the plaintiff.
proving
There is a group called the "AvMA" which stands for "Action Against Medical Accidents". There is plenty of information about medical negligence in Scotland on their website.
Reckless or gross negligence.