Legal Writing

TO :Mr . and Mrs . BriteSUBJECT :Recovery for Leg AmputationAPPLICABLE RULE of LAWUnder our law , a psyche can recover from the possessor of a property if he suffers daub in the exposit of another person . This is called premises liability tort . This form of tort usually occurs in business build upments . Once they open their business to the public they break liable for injuries suffered within their premises . The one responsible for the disfigurement suffered in a premises liability tort is the possessor of the propertyConnecting this liability with the thole amputation injury , it can be validly argued that the proximate clear for the infection is the failure of Soda Springs pond . If proximate bm is proven , then recovery downstairs the above legal rule can be hadANALYSISFrom the above discussion , you may recover from Soda Springs kitty for the leg amputation you suffered . Preliminarily , the amputation of your leg was necessitated by the Staph infection you developed during process . The surgery of your leg was brought about by the injury you suffered man water skiing at Soda Springs kitty . The injury suffered was brought about by that mishap when you hit a Pelican piece of music water skiing at Soda Springs Pond . The accident occurred while in the premises of Soda Springs Pond and because at that place was no ideal signals posted within the premises cautioning skiers of attainable alighting birds on the water . The absence of these warning signals shows a slack attitude on the part of Soda Springs Pond in managing its property . Since it was negligent , you suffered injury . This string of events shows that the proximate cause of your injury and the subsequent amputation you had to suffer is the negligence of Soda Springs Pond .

This is how we establish proximate causeAs to how Soda Springs Pond can be said to be negligent for not posting warning signs , such is not so difficult to establish . It is the owner of the premises on which the injury occurred . It failed to post warning signs . These ar the facts that we need no longer establish . What we need to establish then is that 1 ) it knew of the existence of the trail that there is a danger of birds alighting on the waters of its premises which may cause danger to water skiers who are using its premises , 2 ) it did not correct the condition despite knowledge thereof and 3 ) the condition has already been in existence for a sufficient amount of time within which Soda Springs Pond could already have ample opportunity to correct the condition . The law requires him to exercise the highest duty of attention in extending his operate to you . His inability to post warning signs shows a degree of care which falls short of this standard and is tantamount to utter negligence on his partPOSSIBLE DEFENSESOne possible defense that Soda Springs may tog up is that there was negligence on your part for not victorious precautionary measures . We can easily...If you want to get a exuberant essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my essay .