本文主要讲述的是事故责任的案例分析，然而，如果我们从公共交通公司的角度来看，他们可以通过咨询律师来建立强有力的辩护。他们可以这样说，鸠山幸没有等太久，她也可以打电话给别人(可能是紧急援助)。然而，她决定爬出厕所，这并不属于公共交通公司的疏忽。必须适当地指出，原告的损害赔偿和索赔必须有强有力的证据和症状作为依据。因此，根据间接证据，我们可以得出结论，公共交通公司只能对没有确保厕所的正常功能负责。鸠山幸的事故似乎是她自己的过错，因此公共交通公司不能承担责任(Joewono & Kubota, 2006)。本篇英国论文代写价格文章由英国论文人EducationRen教育网整理，供大家参考阅读。
However, if we look from Public transport corporation perspective, they can build a strong defence by consulting a lawyer. They can state that Miyuki did not wait long enough and she could also have called someone (possibly emergency help). However, she decided to climb out of the toilet which does not fall under the negligence of the public transport corporation. It must be duly noted that the damages and claims by plaintiff must be backed with strong evidence as well as symptoms. Therefore, based on the circumstantial evidence, we can come to the conclusion that public transport corporation can only be held responsible for not ensuring the proper functionality of the toilet. Miyuki’s accident seems to be her own fault hence Public Transport Corporation cannot be held responsible (Joewono & Kubota, 2006).
September 3, 2016 Australian associated press- A women from Victoria was brutally murdered by a man on parole. The victim identified as Elsa Corp was 26 years of age and killed by David Patrick in 2010. The police told the press that David was under heavy drugs which lead to the psychotic frenzy. When David was booked on the murder of Elisa, he was already under parole for assaulting two men in the year 2008. The parents of the victim are now suing the government for negligence as according to them David should have only been released after proper evaluation of his mental condition. This is the sixth such case in which the government is sued by a citizen due to sheer negligence. After the incident, the spokesperson from the government acknowledged the loss of victim and assured that proper action will be taken against the person responsible in this case. Shine Lawyers is the firm which is handling previous five cases but the Corps family are yet to decide about their representative in court of law. Since this is not a case of minor or major injury, the plaintiff must seek for proper legal consultancy so that their case is presented in a proper manner in the court (Koubaridis, 2016).
Based on the jest of the incident, it is clearly evident that the government is at fault for releasing David without proper evaluation. The plaintiff has a very strong case here especially when the government is reeling under 5 such similar cases. It is also very likely that the court will favour the victim given the seriousness and gravity of the crime. In my opinion, the Corps should first analyse the current standing of the cases of the previous five victims and if they are satisfied, they should consult Shine Lawyers. Beside financial compensation, the plaintiff should also ask for strict action against the doctors and others officials who were involved in the evaluation of David (Petrie, 2012).