Liability for Omissions The law has historically been reluctant to impose a general liability for omissions as opposed to positive acts. This means that there is no general duty of care in tort to act in order to prevent harm occurring to another. In Smith v Littlewoods Organisation‚ Lord Goff stated clearly that “the common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions”. Similarly‚ in Yuen Kun Yeu v A-G of Hong Kong‚ Lord Keith stated that people can ignore their moral responsibilities
Premium Tort law Legal terms Tort
7.4 Torts at work : • If an error occurred in a pharmacy the pharmacist on charge is the one who is responsible for the error‚ even if the error is one of the pharmacy tech faults (Chaze‚ 2014). • According to the NCPA (2016) if any wrongful activity occur in any pharmacy that may lead to hurt the patients‚ may be counted negligence. The NCPA explained that lawsuit against pharmacist illegal activity can only be applied if the case include these elements‚ which are: the pharmacist had a duty of
Premium Law Tort Tort law
1. NEGLIGENCE The issue is whether Moe is likely to prevail on a negligence claim against Barry. An action for negligence requires Plaintiff to prove that Defendant had a duty of reasonable care‚ Defendant breached that duty‚ the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries‚ and some sort of damage occurred to the plaintiff. a. Duty A general rule is that the defendant whose actions expose others to an unreasonable risk of harm owes a general duty of care to any foreseeable
Premium Tort Law Negligence
Occupiers Liability for Dangerous Premises Occupiers’ liability is a field of tort law‚ codified in statute‚ which concerns the duty of care that those who occupy (through ownership or lease) real property owe to people who visit or trespass. It deals with liability that may arise from accidents caused by the defective or dangerous condition of the premises. By the expression “Premises” in the context of this topic is meant‚ not only‚ land and buildings but also vehicles‚ railway carriages‚ scaffolding
Premium Common law Tort law Tort
a serious facial injury & concussion as a result of a façade collapse‚ near a high-rise building constructed by Silverline. Because of this incidence‚ Emma was unable to work for 6 months. The legal issues arising from this incident fall under the tort of negligence. Silverline breached a duty of care owed to Emma when the façade collapsed and struck her. This breach led to severe injury and her loss of earnings. Emma should be reasonably compensated for this incidence [ ]. Silverline’s high-rise
Premium Tort Construction Facial trauma
This question examines the criminal liability of Joe and Luo in the deaths of Karla and Mick. Joe could be charged with gross negligence manslaughter on the death of Karla. He cannot be charged for murder and voluntary manslaughter because he does not meet the mens rea requirements for intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. He cannot also be charged for unlawful act manslaughter because he has not committed an act but instead has failed to act. The court has established in the case of
Premium Law Tort law Tort
1. Material facts The appellant was riding a “wave rider” Jet Ski in the sea off Weymouth‚ when he crashed into another jet ski and it caused the other rider grievous facial injuries. He was placed on a life support system and needed a surgical operation on his cheekbone‚ eye socket and jaw. Thus‚ the appellant was initially charged under section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for furious driving. However‚ the Court decided that the appellant should be prosecuted under s 58 (2)
Premium Appeal Law Legal terms
Seminar Prep 2 What is defamation? Refers too‚ injuring the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred contempt or ridicule which lowers him in the esteem right thinking of members in the society. Defendant need not ascertained beforehand the likely effect of his words as long as his actions were done voluntarily. What is relevant is that the words were understood by others in a defamatory sense. Liable – usually written. Consists of a defamatory statement or representation in permanent form
Premium Plaintiff Defendant Pleading
Case D‚ which discusses the malfunctioning of a component of a Zoom car‚ presents an issue common in the business world today. While product liability cases are not uncommon‚ successful cases for the plaintiffs often involve them having to prove many aspects of negligence and product liability – primarily duty of care‚ actual and proximate cause‚ and proof that the defendant is directly at fault for the plaintiff’s injuries. Because the doctrine of strict liability likely applies in this case‚ Daniel
Premium Tort Law Negligence
References: Books NeethlingJ‚Potgieter JM (2010) Law of Delict‚ 5th Edition‚ LexisNexis‚ Durban Pattern v Caledonian Insurance Co. 1962 (2) SA 691 (D) Randbank BPK v Santamverserkeringsmaatskapy 1965 (4) SA 363 [ 3 ]. 1987 (2) 82. [ 4 ]. 1986 (1) SA 117 (A). [ 8 ]. 1991 (1) SA 1. [ 9 ]. Neethling J‚ Potgieter JM‚ Visser PJ‚ Knobel JC (2006) Law of Delict‚ 5th Edition‚ LexisNexis Butterworths‚ Durban. [ 11 ]. 2004 (4) SA 220 (C). [ 12 ]. 2004 (4)
Premium Tort law Vicarious liability Legal terms