Respondeat Superior

(n) Doctrine of Respondent superior implies the responsibility of the superiors on the actions
done by their employees, agents, subordinates etc when they are doing such actions during
their assigned duties. So when an accident happens while handling an explosive involved in
the work assigned to such person, The master is responsible for such loss. The Latin word
(rehs-pond-dee-at superior) means 'let the master answer'

assumption-of-risk doctrine
Volenti non fit injuria Medical malpractice A doctrine that states that an individual who
knowingly exposes him/herself to hazards with potential for bodily harm, cannot hold others
liable if harm occurs; under the AORD, a person who consents to a medical procedureor
alternatively, decides to forego a physician-recommended therapywith knowledge that injury
is a foreseeablealbeit uncommonresult, waives the right to a future complaint that any
'foreseeable' injury was caused by the physician's negligence, assuming medical treatment
was performed with proper care, and res ipsa loquitur cannot be evoked.

What is the "assumption of the risk" doctrine?

If you have knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk inherent in a particular
action that caused an accident, you cannot sue the other person for
negligence if you get hurt. For example, if you see a sign that says do not
touch hot but you touch the object anyway and burn your hand, you may be
found to have assumed the risk. This would prevent you from recovering
any money. Another common example of assumption of risk is participation in
a sport in which certain risks are inherent to the game. For instance, if you are
playing football and you get tackled and break an arm, you may not sue the
person who tackled you. On the other hand, if you are playing tennis and a
fight breaks out and you are hit in the head with a racket, you may be able to
sue the person who hit you, since the assumption of risk does not cover any
injury that was intentionally inflicted and not an inherent part of the game.
borrowed servant doctrine
Malpractice A principle under which the party usually liable for a person's actionseg, a
hospital responsible for a nurse, is absolved of that responsibility when that person is asked
to do somethingeg, by a surgeon, which is outside of the bounds of hospital policy.
n
The common law principle that the employer of a borrowed employee, rather than
the employees regular employer, is liable for the employees actions that occur
while the employee is under the control of the temporary employer. Sometimes
referred to as borrowed employee doctrine.

Last Clear Chance

In the law of TORTS, the doctrine that excuses or negates the effect of the plaintiff's
contributory Negligence and permits him or her to recover, in particular instances, damages
regardless of his or her own lack of ordinary care.
The rule of last clear chance operates when the plaintiff negligently enters into an area of
danger from which the person cannot extricate himself or herself. The defendant has the final
opportunity to prevent the harm that the plaintiff otherwise will suffer. The doctrine was

formulated to relieve the severity of the application of the contributory negligence rule against
the plaintiff, which completely bars any recovery if the person was at all negligent.

The last clear chance is a doctrine in the law of torts that is employed in contributory
negligence jurisdictions. Under this doctrine, a negligent plaintiff can nonetheless recover if he
is able to show that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. Though the
stated rationale has differed depending on the court adopting the doctrine, the underlying idea
is to mitigate the harshness of the contributory negligence rule. The defendant can also use
this doctrine as a defense. If the plaintiff has the last clear chance to avoid the accident, the
defendant will not be liable.

Doctrine of last clear chance

From Wiki Law Project (Philippines)
Jump to: navigation, search
The negligence of a claimant does not preclude a recovery for the negligence of defendant
where it appears that the latter, by exercising reasonable care and prudence, might have
avoided injurious consequences to claimant notwithstanding his negligence. As the doctrine
usually is stated, a person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an
accident, notwithstanding the negligent acts of his opponent or the negligence of a third
person which is imputed to his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for the
consequences of the accident.[1]
In essence, the doctrine of last clear chance is to the effect that where both parties are
negligent but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in point of time than that of the other,
or where it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence brought about the occurrence
of the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm but
failed to do so, is chargeable with the consequences arising therefrom. Stated differently, the
rule is that the antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude recovery of damages
caused by the supervening negligence of the latter, who had the last fair chance to prevent
the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence.[2]

A principle that allows individuals to take action in the face of a sudden or urgent need for
aid, without being subject to normal standards of reasonable care. Also called imminent
peril doctrine, or sudden peril doctrine.
The emergency doctrine allows people to act in critical situations that call for quick actiona
fire, an automobile crash, a collapsing buildingwithout danger of recrimination. An example
of someone who might be covered under the emergency doctrine is a person who performs
cardiopulmonary resuscitation on a heart attack victim and in so doing breaks several of the
victim's ribs. Another example is when a driver, surprised by a pedestrian who steps out from
between two parked cars, swerves to miss the pedestrian but then hits another car.
The emergency doctrine also covers situations in which an individual acted in GOOD FAITH
when disaster seemed imminent even though ultimately it was not. There is, however, a fine
distinction between the emergency doctrine and the rescue doctrine, which requires that one
who places a person in peril or in a situation with the appearance of imminent peril owes a
duty of reasonable care to one attempting to rescue the person from the peril or appearance of
peril. In Harris v. Oaks Shopping Center, Cal. App. 4th 206 (1999), a sand sculpture being
installed in a mall appeared to be about to collapse. Harris, a mall employee, rushed over to
push a woman and her small child out of the way. In his rush, he fell and injured his back. He
filed suit, but the jury found that since the sculpture did not fall, there was no imminent

danger; moreover, there was no evidence of NEGLIGENCE on the part of the mall or the
sand sculptors. Harris appealed, stating that the jury should have been instructed that since
he acted on what he saw as an imminent threat, he had no obligation to prove actual
negligence. He reasonably believed that the sculpture was about to collapse. The appellate
court agreed and sent the case back to trial court for a new trial, in which the jury was to
consider whether Harris acted reasonably under the circumstances. The court did, however,
note that it was the rescue doctrine that applied in this case because the plaintiff's injuries
stemmed from the attempted rescue, not an actual collapsed structure.

Read more: Emergency Doctrine - Peril, Imminent, Rescue, Harris, Jury, and
Sculpture http://law.jrank.org/pages/6421/EmergencyDoctrine.html#ixzz3HrMxa66T

Res Gestae
Res gestae (a Latin phrase meaning "things done") is an exception
to the rule against Hearsay evidence. Res gestae is based on the
belief that because certain statements are made naturally,
spontaneously and without deliberation during the course of an
event, they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation
upon hearing by someone else (i.e. by the witness who will later
repeat the statement to the court) and thus the courts believe that
such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Statements which
can be admitted into evidence as Res gestae fall into three
headings:
1. Words or phrases which either form part of, or explain a physical
act,
2. Exclamations which are so spontaneous as to belie concoction,
and
3. Statements which are evidence as to someone's state of mind.
(In some jurisdictions the Res gestae exception has also been used
to admit police sketches.)
The principle underlying S.6, the following is sometimes termed as
res gestae. This phrase means simply a transaction, thing done,
the subject matter, res gestae of any case properly consists of
that portion of actual worlds happenings out of the right or liability,
complained or asserted in the proceeding, necessarily, arises.
Apparently the phrase is well established in the Law of Evidence. It
is necessary therefore, to understand what it really means. That has
been used in two senses. In the restricted sense it means worlds
happening out of which the right or liability in question arises. In
wider sense it covers all the probative facts by which res gestae are
reproduced to the tribunal where the direct evidence of witness or
perception by the court is unattainable. In restricted meaning res
gestae imports the conception of action by some person producing
the effects for which the liability is sought to be enforced in action.

To be clear, in the restricted sense facts which constitute the res

gestae must be such as so connected with the very transaction or
fact under investigation as to constitute a part of it.
Whatever act or series of acts constitute, or in point of time
immediately accompany and terminate in. The principal act charged
as an offence against the accused from its inception to its
consummation and whatever may be said by either of the parties
during the continuance of the transaction, with reference to it,
including herein what may be said by the suffering party, though in
absence of the accused during the continuance of the action or the
latter, form part of the principal transaction and may be given in
evidence as part of res gestae of it. While, on the other hand,
statements made by the complaining party, after all action on the
part of wrong-doer has ceased and some time has elapsed do not
form part of res gestae and should be excluded.
Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that, facts which,
though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form
part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at
the same time and place or at different times and places.

Res Gestae
Top
Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law Encyclopedia
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
[Latin, Things done.] Secondhand statements considered trustworthy for the purpose of
admission as evidence in a lawsuit when repeated by a witness because they were made
spontaneously and concurrently with an event.
Res gestae describes a common-law doctrine governing testimony. Under the hearsay rule, a
court normally refuses to admit as evidence statements that a witness says he or she heard
another person say. The doctrine of res gestae provided an exception to this rule. During the
nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century, courts applied the exception by
following an assortment of common-law rules. With the introduction of the Federal Rules of
Evidence, federal courts abolished res gestae as a common-law doctrine and replaced it with
explicit exceptions to the ban on hearsay. To varying degrees, state rules of evidence are
modeled on the federal rules. Although the term is now infrequently used, the legacy of res
gestae is an integral part of the modern framework of hearsay evidence.
Traditionally, two reasons have made hearsay inadmissible: unfairness and possible
inaccuracy. Allowing a witness to repeat hearsay does not provide the accused with an
opportunity to question the speaker of the original statement, and the witness may have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the statement. Thus, in a trial, counsel can object to a
witness's testimony as hearsay. But in the nineteenth century, the borrowing of the concept of
res gestae from English law offered an exception to this rule. Res gestae is based on the
belief that because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without
deliberation during the course of an event, they carry a high degree of credibility and leave
little room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation. The doctrine held that such statements

are more trustworthy than other secondhand statements and therefore should be admissible
as evidence.

QUASI DELICT, civil law. An act whereby a person, without malice, but by fault, negligence or
imprudence not legally excusable, causes injury to another.
2. A quasi delict may be public or private; the neglect of the affairs of a community, when it
is our duty to attend to them, may be a crime; the neglect of a private matter, under similar
circumstances, may be the ground of a civil action. Bowy. Mod. C. L. c. 43, p. 265.

QUASI DELICT
An act whereby a person, without malice, but by fault,
negligence or imprudence not legally excusable, causes
injury to another.

A quasi delict may be public or private; the neglect of

the affairs of a community, when it is our duty to attend
to them, may be a crime; the neglect of a private matter,
under similar circumstances, may be the ground of a
civil action.

The doctrine of vicarious liability

describes the responsibility of a person for another's torts. The
typical example of this is an accident at work - an employee may
have caused an injury to another employee through negligence in
which case the employer is known to be vicariously liable for the
torts of his servants. In other words the employer can be sued
directly as though his employee's negligence was his negligence.

When res ipsa loquitur is invoked, the doctrine permits the plaintiff to win his case
without explicitly proving negligence. It, essentially, is a doctrine that says that the
action that caused the injury was so obviously negligent that the action speaks for
itself and no additional proof is required. If res ipsa loquitur applies and is accepted by
the court, the plaintiff only has to prove that he incurred damages as a result of the
defendant's actions in order to win the case.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

1 person found this useful

(1 Votes)

Print

Res Ipsa Loquitur is the process of determining negligence

and reaching a verdict for the obvious details.
Res ipsa loquitur. This Latin phrase means "the thing speaks for itself," and implies that
the plaintiff need only show that a particular result occurred and would not have occurred but
for someone's negligence.

Determining Negligence and Fault

Establishing wrongdoing on the part of a health care provider is often difficult. It requires the
hiring of experts, in the same field as the health care professional being charged with
misconduct, who must testify as to what the defendant should have done under applicable
professional standards. Since medical organizations generally discourage those in the
medical professions from testifying against one another, it is difficult to find experts who have
the integrity to come forward and testify as to misconduct by one of their peers. In addition,
many insurance companies providing coverage to health care providers require that they not
testify against other providers who are insured by the same company.