other road user “Imbree v McNeilly" ! Doctors owe a duty of care to their patients “Roger v Whitaker” ! Solicitors owe a duty of care to their clients “Hawkins v Clayton” ! Manufacturers owe a duty of care to people who use their products “Donoghue v Stevenson” ! Occupiers owe a duty of care to people who come onto their premises. “Australian Safeway stores Pty v Zaluzna” ! Architects owe a duty of care to the people who occupy the buildings they design “Voli v Inglewood” ! Agents owe a duty
Premium Tort law Duty of care Tort
1. Delict is from the Latin ‘delictum; meaning an offence or ‘wrong’. It can be defined as a situation where the defender voluntarily commits an act or fails to act when the law imposes a duty of care and this failure to implement the legally required standard care causes the pursuer to suffer a personal injury or loss or damage. Negligence is harm which is caused unintentionally. Negligence claims arise because the defender owes what is known as a duty of care to the pursuer and‚ unfortunately
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
Judiciary is a branch of the country ’s government that is responsible for the administration of legal proceedings with the judicial powers vested in them. The systems of court consist of independent judges where there are no external or political influence regarding its decisions. Judiciary will function through the administration and interpretation of laws for its cases with the doctrine of precendents where lower courts in the same hierarchy are bounded within the prescribed limits by prior decisions
Premium Common law Stare decisis Case law
Tort of Negligence case study The law of contract: a contract is a legally binding agreement‚ its a promise between two or more to parties with certain things‚each party must fulfill there promises if one of them don’t fulfill there promise then the contract is breached (VOID). The law of tort: A tort is a civil wrong in the sens that is committed against an individual‚ tort is compensated by a sum of money called “DAMAGES”. Contract laws and tort laws share many similarities. At
Premium Tort Contract Common law
caused to the plaintiff by that breach‚ and Remoteness of damages The burden of proof is placed on the plaintiff. 1. 2. 3. 6 2. The General Principles of Liability for Negligence 2.1 Duty of Care • • Landmark case: Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) Before 1932‚ the law recognised only a few “duties”: - Innkeepers owed a duty of care to their guests; -
Premium Tort Tort law
negligence‚ which is actionable‚ would incur liability. In Donoghue v Stevenson‚ friends of Mrs. Donoghue bought her a bottle of ginger beer‚ which contained a composed snail and caused Mrs. Donoghue to be ill. Since Mrs. Donoghue did not buy the beer‚ she could not sue under contract law but in tort. The Court held that manufacturer owed duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue and that duty was breached. The rationales behind were that Mrs. Donoghue should have had in their mind as being influenced by their
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
decidendi………………………………………. 10 9. Obiter Dictum………………………………………... 11 Introduction An attempt has been made to do an analysis of the case “Sonu v. State of M.P.” (MANU/MP/0088/2010) in the parameters given below:- * Concrete Facts of The Case * Material Facts of The Case * Immaterial Facts of The Case * Concrete Decision * Generalisation of The Concrete Facts * Generalisation The Concrete Decision * Ration Decidendi of The Case * Obiter Dicta (if any) SONU v
Premium Ratio decidendi Jury Stare decisis
A number of queries have reached us whether a married person can re-file a petition for annulment or declaration of nullity when the previous petition was previously dismissed. The first petition is usually based on psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code and the second petition is almost always based on a different ground. This is precisely the issue resolved in the case of Mallion vs. Alcantara‚ 31 October 2006‚ G.R. No. 141528: Does a previous final judgment denying a petition
Premium Marriage
liability. There are various categories of tort‚ which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other types of tort‚ providing a wide scope of protection‚ especially since Donoghue v Stevenson. For liability under negligence a duty of care must be established owed to a group of persons of which the victim is one‚ a nebulous concept into which many other categories are being pulled. But as Lord MacMillan said in the case‚ "the categories
Premium Tort
PART-I ------------------------------------------------- GENERAL INTRODUCTION: Through the course of this research the researcher hopes to give the reader an insight of nature and scope of “The Doctrine of Precedent”. The researcher in her efforts to understand the Doctrine and its implication divided the research paper in the three parts. In the first part the researcher will look at the meaning and scope of the Doctrine of Precedent. In the second part the researcher looks at the types of
Premium Common law Stare decisis Precedent