GENERAL DUTY OF CARE 3 3.0 SUMMARY OF CASE “DONOGHUE V STEVENSON” 3 3.1 ACTIONS TAKEN BY DONOGHUE 4 3.2 THE RESPONSE OF MR. STEVENSON 5 4.0 THE IMPLICATION OF CASE 5 5.0 THE JUDGEMENT 6 6.0 THE CONCLUSION 7 7.0 REFERENCES 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION Introduction to students the Lord Atkin’s concept of general duty of care‚ summary of the case “Donoghue v Stevenson” and its implication. It will also briefly explain
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
legal standing of the doctrine of ’separate legal personality ’ as it was developed in Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22. Even though this doctrine is the stone head of the English company common law‚ the courts introduced several exceptions which undermined the ’veil of incorporation ’. The exceptions were firstly introduced in the mid-60s by Lord Denning in Littlewoods Mail Order Stores Ltd. V IRC [1969]‚ and allowed the court to lift the veil and hold the shareholders liable for the company
Premium Corporation Corporations law Legal entities
Plyler v Doe When state and local governments try to pass restrictions for education based on legality of the student they are‚ for the most part‚ brought to a halt by the court system. The courts cite Plyler v Doe‚ but why? What does Plyler v Doe do for undocumented students? Before 1982‚ the year when Plyler v Doe was put into action‚ some Texas local governments were denying funding for undocumented students and charging them a tuition fee of $1‚000.00 per year. The original policy stated
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Education School
Professor Ballone 14 February 2014 Obscenity in Miller v. California Today in our criminal justice system there exists a policy known as “The Miller Test”. The purpose of this test is to determine whether or not a given substance is obscene or not. It is a test that is frequently used today by police‚ and its significance is clearly obvious. The “Miller Test” is a direct result from the outcome of the U.S Supreme Court decision‚ Miller v. California. In this case‚ a local business owner who specialized
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Suman Siva Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 2 CASE LAW ON DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) Summary On August 26th 1928‚ Donoghue (plaintiff) and a friend were at a case in Glasgow‚ Scotland. Her friend ordered / purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The bottle was in an opaque bottle (dark glass material) as Donoghue was not aware of the contents. After‚ Donoghue drank some and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
Brewer v Mann Queen ’s Bench Division 14 October 2010 Case Analysis Where Reported[2010] EWHC 2444 (QB); Official Transcript Case DigestSubject: Sale of goods Other related subjects: Sale of goods; Consumer law Keywords: Bailment; Breach of contract; Breach of warranty; Damages; Hire purchase; Misleading statements; Motor dealers; Trade descriptions; Warranties Summary: The claimant succeeded in her claims for breach of warranty and breach of contract in respect of the sale to her
Premium Contract Contract law
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Criminal Procedure and the Constitution September 13‚ 2012 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Facts: In Mapp v. Ohio (1961)‚ the police thought Dollree Mapp was hiding a suspect they were looking for in connection with building a bomb. The police officers lied and said they had a search warrant of which they did not and forced their way into Mapp’s home and searched it. While searching the home‚ the police found evidence‚ not for a bomb‚ but of pornographic material that violated
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
GSL 504 Module 2 Henry V and Leadership Deanna Cunningham Leaders in today’s work environment are faced with challenges that are similar to challenges faced in the past. Although technology has caused our challenges to be on a broader scale they still represent the same issues that have been faced for years regarding confidence in leadership and how to foster leadership. While in battle Henry V gave his soldiers the freedom of choice to fight with him or if they had the desire to leave
Premium Henry V of England Leadership England
CONSERVATISM V. LIBERALISM Conservatism v. Liberalism Kayla Crissinger West Harrison High School 1 CONSERVATISM V. LIBERALISM 2 Abstract This paper examines the structures of conservatism and liberalism in its most basic forms. It explores several different sources of information containing different views upon the true definition of “conservatism” and “liberalism” and how the two groups interact among each other. This paper an
Premium Conservatism Liberalism Political spectrum
Arizona v. Gant PALS480-Capstone June 20‚ 2012 The Parties • Plaintiff – State of Arizona • Defendant – Rodney Gant • Appellant – State of Arizona • Respondent – Rodney Gant Procedural History • Respondent‚ Rodney Gant‚ was arrested for driving with a suspended license. Subsequent to the search of the Gant’s vehicle officers found cocaine in the back seat. At trial Gant moved to have the evidence suppressed denied that there was probable cause to search the vehicle‚ but did
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States