|← Law||Gordans Unhappy →|
The Law of Tort is normally based on the fact that everyone is a member of the society is expected to behave in a manner that is straightforward. This is to the effect that upon one deviating from the straightforward path and into the crooked ways, the individual will be able to be spoken of as having committed a tort. In essence, committing the tort will have entailed contravening some duty. The gravity of the independent duty on the other hand gives rise to the need for civil action, so that it is sought to be restituted for, through compensation.
There are therefore sundry elements of tort with the elements of negligent tort being one among these. The duty to protect is one among the elements of Negligent Tort. The essence of the Duty to Protect demands that the guardian ad litem makes necessary steps to avert any danger that may befall the party that is under the care of the same. For instance, in a learning situation, it is the teacher's responsibility to make sure that students, especially, the young ones, take necessary steps to avert foreseeable dangers that may befall students who are under the care of the teacher. To this effect, it is important that the responsible party, or the guardian ad litem carries out complete and thorough supervision, supervision of high risk activities and proper maintenance of facilities and equipment. This Duty to Protect at the same time may be pertinent in the entire situation that pertains to the jurisdictions and activities of the guardian ad litem (Jacob and Fedor, 2003).
The same Jacob and Fedor (Ibid) point out that the second element of Negligent Tort is the Failure to Cary out Reasonable Standard Care. This normally takes place when it has been proven that there was failure on the side of the guardian ad litem because of negligence when the teacher fails to exercise standard care towards those under his care. For instance, when a security and safety company that has been outsourced to provide security services fails to ensure that all the fire extinguishers are in functional mode, upon a fire outbreak, the security and safety company may be held liable in a court of law for negligence. Similarly, if the security and safety company failed to provide instructional messages and awareness on the best way of handling emergencies as stipulated in the agreement, the same company may be held liable.
Closely related to the above as a form of element of Negligent Tort, is that of Proximate Cause. This handles the connection between the caretakers's or service provider's breach of duty or negligence on the side of the responsible party and the harm, damage or injury that has materialized as a result of the same negligence. William and Okrent (2003) explain poignantly that this element of Proximate Cause, applies the concept of foreseeability. If it is that the harm, damage or loss may have been anticipated by the caretaker or the services provider, and if it was possible to make felicity conditions and steps to avert the crisis, then negligence can be adduced, in a logical sense. The gravity of this concept is that courts of law always seek to ascertain whether the injury or the loss occurred naturally, or out of the failure to supervise. The concept of foreseeability is also to be evaluated in a court of law. This is to the effect that negligence claims emanating from accidents or mishaps that had no way of being prevented through utmost care or exercise are dismissed (Mallor, et al. 2010).
According to William and Okrent (2003), the law of Actual Injury as an element of Negligent Tort succeeds the above law of Proximate Cause. This portends the actual seeking to prove that there was indeed, an actual injury, physical or mental, stemming from the negligence. Despite the fact that it is not mandatory that the harm or injury be physical, it must be real, as opposed to being imaginary. This law of tort is so binding and sacrosanct to an extent that despite the fact that there could be actual and proven negligence on the side of the care taker, services provider or the guardian, damage suits cannot pass on as successful, unless the harm, damage or the loss is seen to be provable. For instance, the aforementioned security and safety company that has been outsourced may only be held to be responsible or liable in a court of law, if it did not only provably act negligently. On the contrary, it is needed that the negligence must have caused a loss, damage or injury, probably through the subsequent fire outbreak. In the absence of the actual and visible injury stemming from the act of negligence on the side of the contracted or vending company, the case cannot stand trial before the court of law.