Personal Injury Lawyer in NJ - The Law Offices of James C. DeZao

SciVee ◽  
2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Ponds ◽  
Jeremy Ponds
Keyword(s):  
Personal Injury ◽  
The Law

scholarly journals Deducting collateral benefits from damages: principle and policy

Legal Studies ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Lewis
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Insurance Law ◽  
Personal Injury Litigation ◽  
Important Policy ◽  
Accident Victim ◽  
The Law

Schemes for compensating injury which operate alongside each other call for important policy decisions to be made concerning their inter-relationship. Are they to take account of one another and, if so, to what extent? These issues can arise in a variety of contexts. Within particular regimes they are the concern, for example, of the overlapping benefit regulations in social security law and the rules relating to contribution in insurance law. However, the focus of this article is upon personal injury litigation. It examines the policy reasons which have been used to justify the different results reached by the law when faced with the problem of ‘collateral benefits’ received by an accident victim also seeking damages. Typically, these benefits are received from the state, or an employer, or an insurer.

scholarly journals Compensation for harm caused by nuclear installations: what’s the damage?

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-35
Author(s):  
Robert Lee ◽  
Radek Stech
Keyword(s):  
Design Methodology ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Property Damage ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

Purpose This paper aims to explain the changes to the liability regime for nuclear installations before reviewing the traditional heads of damage under the 1965 Act. It argues that while there is some welcome clarification of what amounts to an “occurrence” in the purposes of the 1965 Act, disappointingly, little has been done to clarify how concepts of personal injury and property damage under the Act sit alongside traditional tort notions leaving the law highly dependent on earlier, but not always consistent, case law. The paper then goes on to consider the impact of the new categories of compensation, introduced by the Order, evaluating the extent to which these draw upon EU law structures for environmental impairment liability. Again, it questions whether this approach will achieve sufficient clarity and certainty. Design/methodology/approach This paper is a desk-based legal research. Findings This study is a discussion of statutory material and case law. Originality/value This paper is a first in-depth treatment of changes to liability principles in the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

In Our Image: Colonial Discourse and the Anglicization of the Law of Mandatory Palestine

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assaf Likhovski
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Colonial Discourse ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Shoulder Blade

My story is full of holes. The first hole, or rather, ditch, was dug in 1930 by the municipality of Haifa. An Arab, Dr. Caesar Khoury, fell into the ditch and fractured his shoulder-blade.Could Dr. Khoury recover? The law of torts of mandatory Palestine was found in the Mejelle — an Ottoman code of Moslem civil law. Did the Mejelle provide a remedy in the case of personal injury? “Unfortunately,” said Judge Francis Baker, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of Palestine, “the Mejelle dealt with liability for damages caused by animals to property, but it was ‘silent’ with regards to injuries caused to persons”. Therefore, Dr. Khoury could not recover.The second hole in my story belongs to a Jew, Feivel Danovitz. In 1939, Danovitz was run down by a truck in Tel Aviv. He sued the driver and the owner of the truck. The lower courts of Tel Aviv decided that if the Mejelle did not deal with liability for personal injury, that meant that there was a hole in the tort law of Palestine. Such a hole could be filled by recourse to the English common law in accordance with the provisions of Article 46 of the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922. Since the English common law recognized liability for personal injury, Danovitz could recover.

Personal Injury and the Law

1962 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-72
Author(s):  
Donald C. Norris
Keyword(s):  
Personal Injury ◽  
The Law

Actuarial Assessment of Damages

1968 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 293-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. Prevett
Keyword(s):  
Point Of View ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Fatal Accident ◽  
Actuarial Assessment ◽  
Working Paper ◽  
Personal Injury Litigation ◽  
Actuarial Approach ◽  
The Law ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Law Commission

The purpose of this paper is to provide an opportunity for discussion within our profession of ‘the use of an actuarial approach and actuarial evidence’ in the assessment of damages arising out of personal injury and fatal accident litigation. The need for such a paper was intimated in the pages of our Journal by William Phillips in his Review of Principles of the Law of Damages by Professor Harry Street. Since the publication of what Phillips described as ‘from the actuarial point of view…the most important legal textbook which has been published in the last 50 years’ the employment of actuaries in this field has been widely discussed within the legal profession. The most important recent development has been the inclusion of personal injury litigation as Item VI of the first programme of the Law Commission set up by the Law Commission Act, 1965. The words quoted in the first sentence above are taken from the list of ‘Questions for Examination’ under (b) of Item VI, ‘Assessment of Damages’. The current examination being conducted by the Law Commission makes this a particularly appropriate time for a sessional meeting on this subject. The writer has had the advantage of a sight of a preliminary Working Paper prepared by the Law Commission and will be quoting certain extracts from that paper below. It must however be stressed that the Working Paper is a preliminary one which attempts to do no more than canvass views: it in no way sets out the conclusions of the Law Commission on the matters discussed.

The Actuary and the Law (Staple Inn Reading 2000)

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 801-816
Author(s):  
L. Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Human Activity ◽  
Discount Rate ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
The Law ◽  
Future Loss

ABSTRACTThe lecture discusses the issue of actuarial evidence in personal injury cases, and how the courts have been diffident towards actuarial evidence and the utility and importance of actuarial expertise. Until recently lawyers have not understood the ways in which actuaries work with probabilities. The lecture then shows that now the law has adopted actuarial thinking in several significant ways, and in particular in damages and personal injury cases. The discount rate for calculating the multiplier for future loss is discussed, as is the new area of risk assessment and conditional fees. Lawyers need actuarial help where appropriate, and both face the daily problem of applying the laws of probability to human activity.

3. Duty of care II: bodily injury and psychiatric illness

2021 ◽  
pp. 62-85
Author(s):  
Christian Witting
Keyword(s):  
Psychiatric Illness ◽  
Sensory Experience ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Bodily Injury ◽  
The Law

This chapter discusses the duties of care in negligence that must be pleaded where the claimant has suffered some kind of personal injury—principally cases of bodily injury and psychiatric illness. The law imposes a wide duty with respect to persons who are physically proximate and vulnerable to injury. The law imposes a wide duty of care also upon persons who imperil others’ physical safety and cause them, as persons in the ‘zone of danger’, to suffer psychiatric illness. By contrast, the law has imposed certain ‘control mechanisms’ on the duty of care as it applies to secondary victims (who were outside the zone of danger but have suffered psychiatric injury). These mechanisms involve stringent types of proximity (as to relationships, presence, and sensory experience) in addition to the requirement of foreseeability to persons of the type of psychiatric illness.

scholarly journals Restating the common law? The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015

Legal Studies ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 577-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Goudkamp
Keyword(s):  
Social Context ◽  
Social Action ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Large Network ◽  
Reasonable Care ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 entered into force on 13 April 2015. It is too soon for it to have been considered judicially, and it has not yet been subjected to sustained academic analysis. Accordingly, this article considers its impact. In doing so, it situates the Act in its social context and draws attention to the fact that it is part of a large network of statutes that share the same objectives. It is argued, contrary to prevailing views, that parts of the Act change the law. It is also maintained that the Act’s reach is not confined to personal injury cases or even to tort cases. It potentially applies far more widely, including to contractual actions that allege a failure to take reasonable care. In addition to analysing the Act, this article investigates why the legislature might want to restate the common law (which is what the Act does in part), whether replicating the common law is desirable and, if the legislature is bent on restating the common law, how it should go about doing so.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document