answersLogoWhite

0


Want this question answered?

Be notified when an answer is posted

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: How can a defendant owe a duty to a stranger?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What level of duty does CI owe to BTF and have they breached that duty?

because


What are tests for negligence?

In order to prove negligence you have to show: * Duty of care: the defendant must have had a reasonable duty to avoid causing injury to another. * Breach of duty: the defendant failed to carry out their duty to avoid injury to the plaintiff. * Cause: there must be proof that the defendant's breach of duty caused the injury. * Damages: it must be proven that damages occurred as a result of the plaintiff's breach of duty. Below is an article on proving negligence.


What are the test for negligence?

The tests for negligence typically involve determining if the defendant owed a duty of care, if they breached that duty, if the breach caused harm to the plaintiff, and if the harm was foreseeable. These tests help courts determine if a person is legally responsible for their actions or inactions that led to harm.


Does a citizen owe loyalty or a duty to his or her country?

Yes


What is the US duty on loose diamonds?

In order to pay the duty you owe when you bring loose diamonds into the United States, you can either work with a broker who can help you calculate what you owe, or you can work with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule Classification system to determine the rate of duty that you owe and pay it upon entry. You can find a link to the HTS download, below.


What are three elements of tort?

1. legal duty owned 2. duty breached 3. plaintiff suffered damage due to defendant's negligence -Giri


Defending personal injury suit?

The defense of personal injury lawsuit should be proving that the defendant is not guilty of negligence. This can be done by showing that there was not a duty of care owed by the defendant to the prosecution or that the defendant was not truly injured or the injuries were not directly related to the defendant. Below is a link to an article stating the steps of proving negligence.


What are three elements of any tort?

1. legal duty owned 2. duty breached 3. plaintiff suffered damage due to defendant's negligence -Giri


What are the three elements of any tort?

The three elements of any tort are: duty of care, breach of duty, and causation. Duty of care refers to the legal obligation to avoid causing harm to others. Breach of duty occurs when someone fails to fulfill their duty of care. Causation establishes a direct link between the breach of duty and the harm caused.


What are four elements involved in a successful negligence suit?

1. Duty - The Defendant must have owed a duty to the Plaintiff. There are generally two ways a duty can arise between the Defendant and the Plaintiff. First, ask "did the defendant's conduct create a risk of harm to the plaintiff?" If the answer is yes, then the defendant owed a duty to do his risk-creating conduct reasonably under the circumstances. If the defendant's risk-creating conduct did not create a risk (the answer to the question is no), then one needs to investigate into whether a special relationship exists between the parties. Examples of special relationships are hiker-hiker, teacher-student, doctor-patient, priest-churchgoer, etc. Special relationships can increase the amount of care owed by one party to the other, but generally will never decrease the amount of duty owed. 2. Breach of duty - the defendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances If the jury concludes that the defendant did not act as a reasonable person should under the circumstances (which is not necessarily how the individual jurors would have acted) then the defendant breached his duty. Remember, the negligence suit fails if the defendant did not owe a duty. 3. Cause - You asked for four elements but "cause" is broken down into two categories-cause-in-fact and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is usually easy to prove. Ask "if not for the defendant's existence in the world, would the plaintiff have been harmed?" If the answer is yes, then the defendant's conduct is a cause-in-fact of the plaintiff's harm. There are other tests used. Proximate cause is usually more difficult than the other elements. It deals with how closely the defendant's conduct relates to the plaintiff's injury. Perhaps the best means to illustrate proximate cause is by example. If A drops a lit cigarette outside, the wind carries the cigarette 500 feet onto the outhouse on a farm, the outhouse explodes due to the gasoline tank inside (just assume the farmers were crazy kept gasoline around their outhouse). The outhouse's debris breaks through the windshield of a moving car. The car causes an accident injuring the other driver. So, should A be held liable for causing the other driver's injury? Probably not. He is a cause-in-fact of the injury because if he never dropped the cigarette, the injury would not have occurred. However, its not very foreseeable that dropping a cigarette would cause such a sequence of events, so A would not be held liable because his actions were not the proximate cause of the other driver's injury. 4. Damages - the plaintiff must have been injured by the defendant's negligence.


What does deber mean in English?

el deber (noun) = duty, obligation deber (verb) = to owe, ought/have to


Does a lawyer acting in a dispute for what may be decided by a court is a trust owe a duty to a person who may be decided is a beneficiary?

no