Blaw

ELEMENT | TEST |

EXPLANATION OF THE TEST AND APPLICATION TO THE SCENARIO |

1.A DUTY OF CARE IS OWED | LEGAL NEIGHBOR | THE [DEFENDANT] [CULLIGAN] SHOULD HAVE HAD THE [PLAINTIFF] [MR. MUSTAFA] IN MIND AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THEIR ACTIONS, THEN A DUTY OF CARE IS OWED: THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT ARE LEGAL NEIGHBORS. THE [DEFENDANT] [CULLIGAN] SHOULD HAVE HAD THE [PLAINTIFF] [MR. MUSTAFA] IN MIND AS SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THEIR ACTIONS.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT IS : [INSERT RELATIONSHIP] [PRODUCER OF BOTTLE WATER / MANUFACTURER OF BOTTLE WATER TO END CONSUMER OF BOTTLE WATER] |

2. BREACH OF THE STANDARD OF CARE | REASONABLE PERSON TEST | IF THE [DEFENDANT] [CULLIGAN] FAILED TO ACT THE WAY A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD HAVE ACTED IN THE GIVEN [CIRCUMSTANCE] [CIRCUMSTANCE OF BEING A BETTER/MANUFACTURER OF 100% PURE WATER WHO MARKETS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY PARTICULAR AND CONCERNED ABOUT PURITY.] THE STANDARD OF CARE IS BREACHED. THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO ACT REASONABLY BY: [FAILURES] [FAILING TO ACT REASONABLY BY ALLOWING A FLY INTO THE WATER. THEY FAILED BY NOT SEPARATINF THE BOTTLING AND SHIPPING AREAS SO FLIES COULDN’T GET IN THE WATER.] |

PHYSICAL CAUSATIONLEGAL CAUSATION | 3. “BUT FOR” | THE DEFENDANTS FAILURE TO ACT REASONALBY MUST BE THE “BUT FOR” CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S INJURY/LOSS TO [INSERT FAILURE] [PROVIDE 100% PURE WATER BY ALLOWING A FLY INTO WATER.] THE PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFERED [THESE LOSSES] [EXTREME EMOTIONAL HARM (ANXIETY DEPRESSION) AND THE FINANCIAL LOSSES.] |

| 4. REMOTENESS | IF THE [TYPE] DAMAGES WAS REASONABLY FORSEABLE, THEN THE DEFENDANT IS THE LEGAL CAUSE OR THE PLAINTIFF LOSS. THE TYPE DAMAGES/LOSS WAS [DAMAGES] [EXTREME PSCYHOLOGICICAL HARM/LOSS] |

DAMAGES | PRECUNIARY 1. SPECIAL OUT-OF-CARE: COST OF MEDICATIONS, PSYCHIATRIST, AND ANTI-DEPRESSANTS. LOSS OF FUTURE CARE: ON GOING MEDICATION. ON GOING PSYCHIATRIST 2. LOSS OF FUTURE CARE: ON GOING MEDICATION. ON GOING...