liability on landlords for wrongful acts of tenants‚ but these have been dismissed without inquiry. This can be seen in Smith v Scott and Hussain v Lancaster City Council. Mr EcEachram said that it was unclear whether the threefold test was part of the law of Scotland‚ at least in cases where damages were claimed for personal injury‚ however Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police and Van Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police‚provides an example of its application in cases of personal injury
Premium Duty of care Tort Law
Medical Law Facts of the case:- A medical doctor had assisted a lady in labour The Later facts revealed that a few months in of the Childs growth the parents discovered a problem which was very worrying They later learnt from a professional that there child had deficiencies which capped his mobility on the left arm and the left leg Duty of Care: Breach of Duty: The first issue is the standard of care in which the doctor will be judged on and it is going to be judged on the reasonable
Premium Tort Negligence Tort law
Negligence: The duty of care Introduction The tort of negligence has a role in providing compensation for those who have suffered through the actions of another. A negligent act can be summarised as failing to do something that should be done or doing something that should be carried out in another manner or not at all. When determining if an act is negligent‚ a number of basic principles are called upon in order to establish whether a duty of care is owed and if so‚ by whom. Reasonable Man In
Premium Law Negligence Tort
application of English Law in our legal system. English Law is part of Malaysian law. The definition of law in Article 160 of the Federal Constitution includes ‘the common law in so far as it is in operation in the Federation or any part thereof’. That qualification concerns the extent to which English Law is applicable in Malaysia. First‚ we will discuss on the meaning of ‘sources’. Historical sources is the factor which influenced the development of law in religious and custom. Law can be found through
Premium Law Common law Tort
The duty of care and the search for certainty: Sullivan v Moody‚ Cooper v Hobart‚ and problems in the South Pacific. Andrew Barker In this article‚ Andrew Barker‚ from the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago‚ considers two recent decisions on the duty of care in negligence: Sullivan v Moody‚ from the High Court of Australia‚ and Cooper v Hobart‚ from the Supreme Court of Canada. In these decisions‚ the two courts have re-evaluated their approach to the duty of care in negligence‚ and suggested
Premium Law Tort Negligence
Suggested answer – negligence model case study In the tort of negligence the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care‚ breached that duty and that damages were suffered as a result of a breach of that duty. For Brooke to make a successful claim against the Yarra Valley City Council she must establish that a duty of care existed. Here the test of reasonable foreseeability must be applied. The question to be asked is whether a reasonable person would foresee that damage
Premium Tort Tort law Reasonable person
Alee V. Bob’s Negligence Negligence requires a showing that a duty was owed‚ that the duty was breached‚ and that the breach was the actual and proximate cause of damages Special Duty- Land Occupier/Invitee A special duty arises in circumstances involving a land occupier. An invitee is one who enters upon the land of another with the owner’s permission for the purpose related to the activity. The landowner owes an invitee a duty of care to inspect and discover any dangerous condition and to make
Premium Law Tort Tort law
The respondeat superior doctrine makes employers directly liable for harm caused by their employees as long as they are acting within an official capacity. These actions must be within their scope of employment‚ relate to their work and take place during working hours and in the area they work (Walsh‚ 2014) The narrow issue is whether or not Mr. Mellon legally responsible for Mr. Bundy’s actions under the doctrine. Betty would be required to prove that Mr. Bundy was acting in the scope of his duties
Premium Law Tort law Tort
is not a crime to cause death or injury‚ even intentionally‚ by any omission”. This is not strictly true‚ but we are usually unwilling to prosecute for omissions: Criminal liability for failure to act breaches autonomy. It is less burdensome of the law to require someone to refrain from doing something then it is to oblige him or her to do it. Often difficult to distinguish between acts and omissions (e.g. child accidentally puts hand on D’s genitals in Speck‚ but D is guilty of an offence by positive
Premium Tort law Causality Actus reus
Rules: Business owners and operators owe a DUTY OF CARE to their patrons – those whom they invite onto their premises. If a customer is harmed or injured by the dangerous condition‚ the business operator will normally be liable for damages for the tort of NEGLIGENCE. ASSUMPTION OF RISK – A plaintiff who voluntary enters into a risky situation‚ knowing the risk involved‚ will not be allowed to recover. The Requirement of Assumption of Risk – Knowledge of the Risk and Voluntary Assumption of the
Premium Tort Tort law