A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Overview
Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005). Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965).
Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages; and proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.
A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
Overview
Primary factors to consider in ascertaining whether the person's conduct lacks reasonable care are the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm. See Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm § 3 (P.F.D. No. 1, 2005). Negligent conduct may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 282 (1965).
Five elements are required to establish a prima facie case of negligence: the existence of a legal duty to exercise reasonable care; a failure to exercise reasonable care; cause in fact of physical harm by the negligent conduct; physical harm in the form of actual damages; and proximate cause, a showing that the harm is within the scope of liability.
pwrmoore wrote:
Russ wrote:
big mervyn wrote:Was repeat offending not part of Nige's rational, rather than looking at the incident in isolation as the TMO has to do?
If it was, he never said it to my knowledge
Nige, can you look at this
Tmo, player kicked out
Nige, so penalty and yellow
Tmo, penalty
Nige, and yellow
Tmo, that is not my recommendation
I got the impression that Nige was having real difficulty in hearing and understanding what the TMO was saying. Maybe a duff radio link.
Nah it's the Larne accent !
“That made me feel very special and underlined to me that Ulster is more than a team, it is a community and a rugby family" Rory Best
The answer have I proof experience of interviews and hearings of a similar nature lead to that conclusion because the only time an Accused would fail to question his Accuser is when the Accused is already aware of the sentence .
Which in Payne's case was two weeks holiday with pay .
Secondly Snipe there is the fact that during the hearing the evidence is manipulated to support the conclusion .
Two cars collide -- going in opposite directions - which car is pushing
According to the hearing the driver without the seat belt and on the wrong side of the road is innocent if you can accept the comparison.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
The answer have I proof experience of interviews and hearings of a similar nature lead to that conclusion because the only time an Accused would fail to question his Accuser is when the Accused is already aware of the sentence .
Which in Payne's case was two weeks holiday with pay .
Secondly Snipe there is the fact that during the hearing the evidence is manipulated to support the conclusion .
Two cars collide -- going in opposite directions - which car is pushing
According to the hearing the driver without the seat belt and on the wrong side of the road is innocent if you can accept the comparison.
When people resort to insults they have lost the plot
Any on to Nigel as referee he has the right to ever rule the TMO and issue a card for retaliation if he believes it is necessary to maintain control of the game which is the primary function of a referee .
The offence may not in the opinion of the TMO have warranted a card but the referee is in a better position to judge the tenor of the game at the time of the offence .
The players action cause a general flair up and by emphatic action further violence was avoided .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
rumncoke wrote:When people resort to insults they have lost the plot
Any on to Nigel as referee he has the right to ever rule the TMO and issue a card for retaliation if he believes it is necessary to maintain control of the game which is the primary function of a referee .
The offence may not in the opinion of the TMO have warranted a card but the referee is in a better position to judge the tenor of the game at the time of the offence .
The players action cause a general flair up and by emphatic action further violence was avoided .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I actually agree with what rummy is on about, the incident on it's own was not worth a yellow but in Nigels eyes it was probably the last straw in a list of indiscretions hence he gave the card.
“That made me feel very special and underlined to me that Ulster is more than a team, it is a community and a rugby family" Rory Best
... don't forget people also resort to insults when all forms of rational assistance have been exhausted and have proved utterly futile, much like trying to pursued a kamikaze pilot with calm and reasoned arguments that his controls are suggesting that he alter his trajectory.
If madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results it sometimes helps not to see yourself as a victim but as a lost cause.
Always ask yourself, "What would Big Rodney do"... And every time the answer is... "Eat It"
