here is a case on negligence, professional liability, and insurance from an out recourse using the IRAC method:

Case:

• Name of the case: Crawford v. Country Mutual Insurance Company
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Year: 1996
• Citation: 130 D.L.R. (4th) 670

Issue:

• Whether an insurance company can be held liable for the negligence of its insured if the insured is not acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the negligent act.

Rules:

• The law of negligence requires that a person who is found to be negligent must have owed a duty of care to the person who was injured.
• The duty of care is determined by considering the following factors: the foreseeability of harm, the likelihood of harm, the gravity of the harm, the burden of taking precautions to avoid harm, and the social utility of the actor's conduct.
• An insurance company owes a duty of care to its insured to act in a reasonable and prudent manner in handling claims.

Application:

In this case, the plaintiff, Crawford, was injured in a car accident. The driver of the car that hit Crawford was insured by the defendant, Country Mutual Insurance Company. Crawford sued Country Mutual for negligence, alleging that the company had failed to properly investigate the claim and had denied the claim in bad faith.

The trial court found that Country Mutual had been negligent in handling the claim. However, the court also found that Crawford was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Therefore, the court dismissed Crawford's claim.

The Supreme Court of Canada reversed the trial court's decision. The Court held that an insurance company owes a duty of care to its insured even if the insured is not acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the negligent act. The Court reasoned that the insurance company has a special relationship with its insured and that it is in the public interest to hold insurance companies liable for their negligence in handling claims.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Crawford v. Country Mutual Insurance Company clarifies the law on the liability of insurance companies for the negligence of their insureds. This decision makes it clear that insurance companies owe a duty of care to their insureds to act in a reasonable and prudent manner in handling claims, regardless of whether the insured is acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the negligent act.

Reference:

• Crawford v. Country Mutual Insurance Company, 130 D.L.R. (4th) 670 (S.C.C. 1996).

question : a reflection based on the ORID model. a reflective report based on the following questions. The Planning Stage: Were you able to plan well? What were your strengths? What were the hurdles? What could you do better in the future? The Trial Stage: Did you feel well prepared sitting against your opponent team? How did you feel emotionally? Were you able to put your point across? How was communication between the teams? The Decision: Was it favorable? Were you able to get justice for your client? /Were you able to take a decision based on all the evidence provided to you? Did you miss on any key legal issues? What will you do next time? Key takeaways

While the plaintiff and defendant team will reflect upon the issue of preparedness and justice for their client, the judges will reflect upon their preparedness and award. The observers will discuss what the teams should have done and what they did. Further, the observers will discuss their learnings and key takeaways. The Reflection will follow the ORID Model of reflection on all your learning and takeaways from the Mock Trial Experience. Read further to understand what is the "ORID" model of writing. The purpose of this analysis is to provide you with the opportunity to critically examine your learnings and experience from the arbitration simulation. The reflection should follow the ORID model of reflection. It needs to have these four headers: Objective, Reflective, Interpretive, and Decisional. In other words, your analysis should include four levels that will encourage critical thinking and offer a guide to processing your experience. Try to thoroughly answer the questions and provide examples where needed. A. Objective This part of your analysis will include descriptions of your real experience: What were your learning objectives? What was your goal and what were the roadblocks? What resources did you have? This part will be about information- key facts etc. and will be like the topic/thesis statement for your reflection B. Reflective This part of your analysis will focus on how you felt or interpreted your experience. Please provide a context for these feelings by providing examples from your experience. How did you feel at the beginning of your experience? Enlightened? Confused? Amazed? Stressed? Uncertain? What was the most enjoyable/frustrating part of the experience? What went well, what did not? Mistakes and reflections and those mistakes? C. Interpretive This part of your analysis will focus on what you learned from your experience. What did you learn? Why? Why not? What did you think about it? Did your experience make you change the way you thought about the particular issue? What worked, what didn't? Why was your experience important? D. Decisional This part of your analysis will explore how you will incorporate your new knowledge into your current state of mind. What decisions have you made based on your experience? Have you changed any of your beliefs, opinions, and truths? How are you going to use this new knowledge in the future?