Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Maryland Pharmacy
Example of other students work, make sure your work is similar to this in this format.
Please create a scenario similar to this then later analyze is the same way as the other scenario given:
On a Friday afternoon, Bonnie decided to go to Maryland Pharmacy to get an ear piercing. Therefore she scheduled an ear-piercing appointment at 4:30 pm. As soon as she arrived she picked out earrings of her liking and sat down to get her ears pierced then left the pharmacy satisfied with the necessary items to clean her piercing every day. An hour after she left the pharmacy she started to feel a burning sensation around the skin of her pierced area which lasted a couple of hours. Her ear later started to swell and produce yellow discharge so she decided to go to a dermatologist to check her piercing out, she found out that she has gotten a harmful infection that could cause severe scarring due to the needle used by Maryland Pharmacy which was not sterilized. Bonnie decided to sue the pharmacy.
Scenario:
Josh is an employee at a bank. Everyday he would take the same route on foot to work, as it is the quickest route. On the 13th of January Josh had a very important client who was finalising a transaction which he would receive 25,000 pounds from. On the way to
work that morning, Josh passed a building undergoing construction. However, there was no green netting around it to protect pedestrians from falling debris. Unfortunately, a loose brick fell on his foot and he had to go to the hospital to get it operated on. Since Josh was in the hospital, his scheduled client went to another banker to finalise his deal, leading him to lose 25,000 pounds.
The claimant will be suing the construction company (the defendant) for £25,000 for negligence due to the fact that they owed a duty of care to him. The company is responsible for the protection of pedestrians from any debris in order to avoid any injuries. Also, he will be claiming for the cost of the operation that he had to undergo for his foot.
Acting as a solicitor, I will be advising my client, Josh on his case. All the while addressing the defendants breach of duty of care that was owed and the claim for damages under the Tort of Negligence.
Role: Solicitor to the claimant
– Give advice on why claimant should sue for negligence and claim for damages
Legal analysis
Duty of care: The defendant owes duty of care to claimant
– Donoghue v Stevenson; The Neighbour Principle ?
– Caparo test (three-part test); Caparo v Dickman 1990 ?
– The occupiers Liability Act 1984 ?
Breach of duty: Breach of duty must be proven
– Objective test/Bolam test must be proven
– Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee (1957) ? – Standard of care fell below requirements of profession1
Factual causation: Chain of causation
– But for test; determine causation ²
– Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital 1969 proves liability ¹ Remoteness of damage: Res ipsa loquitur; the thing speaks for itself ? – Reasonably foreseeable; wagon mound
– Economic compensation; Spartan Steel and Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co Ltd 1973 ? – Not too remote
Conclusion: Claimant should sue for breach of duty of care
– Provided necessary elements to prove liability
– Damages to be compensated; monetary and physical
References:
– ‘Barnett V Chelsea & Kensington HMC: What Is “But For Test”? – LIUK’ (LIUK) <https://liuk.co.uk/but-for-test/> accessed 23 February 2020
– ‘Barnett V Chelsea & Kensington Hospital’ (E-lawresources.co.uk)
<http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Barnett-v-Chelsea–and–Kensington-Hospital.php> accessed 29 January 2020
Maryland Pharmacy
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Maryland Pharmacy |
Maryland Pharmacy