Can a company be held in charge for Personal Injury of a customer due to robbery?
The company provide finacial assistance for customer but never ask for a receipt. The customer refuse to shift to hospital but instead ask for money to buy medicine.
Answers:
sorry, your question make no sense. I have no idea who be robbed, who was hurt, by whom or under what circumstances. There are occassions where on earth someone is held liable for injuries by a criminal if the criminal act was forseeable and the company be negligent in the bearing in which is provided the security for customers who relied on that guarantee.
If the customer refused to step to the hospital, then the company can no longer be held responsible
I concur with laughter's explanation. By my read of your cross-question, a business was robbed, during the course of which a customer of said business was injured. In common, I would argue that the business is not liable since it is the robber's affirmative act (and not the company's) that resulted in the injury. The permanent status varies by state, but I believe the robber's act would be call a superseding independent cause by a third party. In oodles states, this destroys the causation linking the company's act and the resulting injury.
That said, the company could be held liable in some point for negligence if it failed to take modest precautionary measures to prevent said robbery, particularly if the business had awareness that a robbery was likely. For example, if robberies are adjectives in the area, next perhaps it would have be reasonable for the company to have armed warranty guards present. There is no standard definition for "reasonable" but one common measure is what the cost of the judge would have been compared to the odds of the event (i.e. the robbery) occuring and the chance that injury would result during such an event. If the precaution is very expensive and the event exceedingly remote, after it would tend to not be reasonable.
I don't recall the precise details past its sell-by date hand, but the obligation of the business to prevent a customer's injury would also depend on whether the customer is a proprietor or invitee of the business. Generally, a lower duty is owed to a licensee. I think most states classify a business's charity donor as an invitee, which means the business has a duty to lift reasonable precautions to make their premises not detrimental. In contrast, a business only need *warn* a tenant of the dangers on their premises.
I would definitely not provide money for medication without a receipt since the company could efficiently be paying for something totally unrelated to the injury. Remember, the law exists to protect the injured customer as all right as the business. There are plenty of injured people who will try to take power of a business by, essentially, extorting them. If the business has already provided money that reasonably compensates the customer's injuries, next I'd say the customer has no further claim. Again, nearby is no standard definition of "reasonable", but it would depend on things like the extent of the injury, whether it was disabling, the amount of the medical bills (this is where on earth receipts are used), and whether the customer had to miss work.
Related Questions:
How long does a personal injury lawsuit clutch? surrounded by california?
What do they ask you during an nouns for discovery surrounded by a personal; injury baggage?
In personal injury cases surrounded by the uk,how does the insurance company access the amount within damages?uk
Possible to sue for personal injury lower than Rylands v. Fletcher.?
Brain injury,personal injury,AIDS,psychological bring down,depersonalzation.?
Answers:
sorry, your question make no sense. I have no idea who be robbed, who was hurt, by whom or under what circumstances. There are occassions where on earth someone is held liable for injuries by a criminal if the criminal act was forseeable and the company be negligent in the bearing in which is provided the security for customers who relied on that guarantee.
If the customer refused to step to the hospital, then the company can no longer be held responsible
I concur with laughter's explanation. By my read of your cross-question, a business was robbed, during the course of which a customer of said business was injured. In common, I would argue that the business is not liable since it is the robber's affirmative act (and not the company's) that resulted in the injury. The permanent status varies by state, but I believe the robber's act would be call a superseding independent cause by a third party. In oodles states, this destroys the causation linking the company's act and the resulting injury.
That said, the company could be held liable in some point for negligence if it failed to take modest precautionary measures to prevent said robbery, particularly if the business had awareness that a robbery was likely. For example, if robberies are adjectives in the area, next perhaps it would have be reasonable for the company to have armed warranty guards present. There is no standard definition for "reasonable" but one common measure is what the cost of the judge would have been compared to the odds of the event (i.e. the robbery) occuring and the chance that injury would result during such an event. If the precaution is very expensive and the event exceedingly remote, after it would tend to not be reasonable.
I don't recall the precise details past its sell-by date hand, but the obligation of the business to prevent a customer's injury would also depend on whether the customer is a proprietor or invitee of the business. Generally, a lower duty is owed to a licensee. I think most states classify a business's charity donor as an invitee, which means the business has a duty to lift reasonable precautions to make their premises not detrimental. In contrast, a business only need *warn* a tenant of the dangers on their premises.
I would definitely not provide money for medication without a receipt since the company could efficiently be paying for something totally unrelated to the injury. Remember, the law exists to protect the injured customer as all right as the business. There are plenty of injured people who will try to take power of a business by, essentially, extorting them. If the business has already provided money that reasonably compensates the customer's injuries, next I'd say the customer has no further claim. Again, nearby is no standard definition of "reasonable", but it would depend on things like the extent of the injury, whether it was disabling, the amount of the medical bills (this is where on earth receipts are used), and whether the customer had to miss work.
Related Questions: