Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when someone engages in outrageous, intentional conduct likely to cause extreme emotional distress to another party. Retrieved 22 September 2017.
They can sue either Molly, Laura, or both. Cite weblastTeacher firstLaw urlp? Lord MacMillan in the House of Lords stated that the standardofcareis thatofthe "reasonable man".3 Specifically in respect of driving, in Nettleship v Weston how to use brief historical in essays Megaw LJ stated that"the standard of care required by the law is the standard of the competent and experienced driver.". For the rule in the.S., see : Calculus of negligence Intention and/or malice edit Further establishment of conditions of intention or malice where applicable may apply in cases of gross negligence. Claim for Negligence by Laura against Molly The analysis as to duty of care owed by Molly, breach and the effect of Dilbert's intervention are the same as above. There is no break in legal causation as there is no novus actus interveniens. 11 12 Determining a duty for mental harm has now been subsumed into the Civil Liability Act 2002 in New South Wales. Duty and breach are therefore established, as is damage, as Dilbert suffered physical harm. 99 The plaintiff's physical injuries were minor and more likely caused by a stampede of travelers on the platform rather than the concussion of the exploding fireworks. Dilbert's decision to try to rescue Rhonda does not break the chain of causation. 'Malice/gross negligence' by Russell.