|
Breach Of Duty In English Law
In English tort law, there can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant establishes both that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that duty. The defendant is in breach of duty towards the claimant if their conduct fell short of the standard expected under the circumstances. General standard of care is as follows For a defendant to be deemed negligent, he must have breached his duty of care towards the plaintiff. In order to be deemed as breaching the duty of care, his actions must be proven to fall below the standard of care likely to be taken by the reasonable man. Establishing a breach of duty and ascertaining the standard of care is complex and before establishing that the duty of care has been breached the plaintiff must first prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care. The standard of care is defined as the measures that a reasonable person (in the circumstances of the defendant) take to reduce the risk of harm. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Tort Law
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than English criminal law, criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside English contract law, contracts and English unjust enrichment, unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations. In English law, torts like other civil cases are generally tried in front a judge without a jury. History Following Roman law, the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of neg ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
OLL Ltd V Secretary Of State For Transport
''OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport'' 9973 All ER 897 is an English court case concerned with negligence from the King's Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales with particular regard to the duty of care owed by the emergency services. Her Majesty's Coastguard do not usually owe a duty of care to people who require its assistance. Facts In this case, it was claimed His Majesty's Coastguard had failed to respond in an adequate period of time to the Lyme Bay canoeing disaster where four school children died after getting into difficulty while on a school trip in Lyme Bay, Dorset. The parent company of the outdoor centre that ran the trip, OLL Ltd, settled several claims with the victims and was seeking a contribution from the Secretary of State for Transport, under whose remit HM Coastguard falls as an executive agency. Judgement The issue boiled down to whether the coastguard owed a duty of care to those it was aware required its assistance (other cases had ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Res Ipsa Loquitur
''Res ipsa loquitur'' (Latin: "the thing speaks for itself") is a doctrine in common law and Roman-Dutch law jurisdictions under which a court can infer negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved in the context of tort litigation. The crux of ''res ipsa loquitur'' is circumstantial inference. Although specific criteria differ by jurisdiction, an action typically must satisfy the following elements of negligence: the existence of a duty of care, breach of appropriate standard of care, causation, and injury. In ''res ipsa loquitur'', the existence of the first three elements is inferred from the existence of injury that does not ordinarily occur without negligence. History The term comes from Latin and is literally translated "the thing itself speaks", but the sense is well conveyed in the more common translation, "the thing speaks for itself". The earliest known use of the phrase was by Cicero in his defe ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Harrison V Vincent
''Harrison v Vincent'' 982RTR 8 is an English Court of Appeal judgment dealing with the liability negligence of participants in sporting competitions towards other participants. It is notable in that it extended the test of "reckless disregard" for the other's safety which was earlier applied to establish a breach of duty in cases of injury to spectatorsSee '' Wooldridge v Sumner'' 9632 QB 23 to cases where other participants had been injured. Facts A sidecar passenger sued the motorcycle rider for injuries sustained during a race when the rider was unable to stop because he missed his gear, and his brakes failed. Judgment The defendant had the duty to check the brakes before the race. Unlike his failure to hit the gear during the "flurry and excitement" of the race, the brakes should have been tested in the relative calm of the workshop before the race. For acts done in the excitement of the competition the participant will only be liable to others if she demonstrates reckless ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Wooldridge V Sumner
''Wooldridge v Sumner'' 962EWCA Civ 3 is an English Court of Appeal judgment dealing with the liability in negligence of participants in sporting competitions towards spectators. The Court of Appeal held in this case that sportsmen would only be liable to spectators if they showed "reckless disregard" for their safety. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Wooldridge, who was a photographer at a horse race, was injured by the horse belonging to the defendant, Sumner, which was ridden in a competition by Ron Holladay, who was a skilled and experienced horseman. Judgment The Court of Appeal held that Sumner owed no duty of care to Wooldridge in this case. As a spectator, Wooldridge accepted the risks involved in a horserace he came to watch. As a reasonable participant in the race, which is a fast and competitive sport, the horseman was expected to concentrate on the race and not on the spectator. In the course of a fast moving competition such as this one, he could be expected to make errors of ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Paris V Stepney Borough Council
''Paris v Stepney Borough Council'' 950UKHL 3 was a decision of the House of Lords that significantly affected the concept of Standard of care in common law. The plaintiff Paris was employed by the then Stepney Borough Council as a general garage-hand. He had sight in only one eye, and his employer was aware of this. The council only issued eye protection goggles to its employees who were welders or tool-grinders. In the course of his usual work, Paris received an injury to his sighted eye. He sued the council for damages in the tort of negligence. On appeal it was decided that Stepney Borough Council was aware of his special circumstances and failed in their duty of care to give him protective goggles. Facts Paris was employed by Stepney Borough Council as garage-hand. He had suffered a war injury that left him with sight in only one eye. While Paris was attempting to loosen a rusted car axle bolt with a hammer, he caused a chip of metal to fly into his sighted eye, and as ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Compensation Act 2006
The Compensation Act 2006 (c 29) is an Act of Parliament, Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, introduced in response to concerns about a growing compensation culture but conversely to ensure that the public received dependable service from claims management companies. In introducing the Bill (proposed law), Bill, Catherine Ashton, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Baroness Ashton said that it was intended "to tackle perceptions that can lead to a disproportionate fear of litigation and risk aversion, risk averse behaviour; to find ways to discourage and resist bad claims; and to improve the system for those with a valid claim for compensation." The Act brought in specific changes to the law of legal liability, liability and damages in negligence and breach of statutory duty. It further introduced a scheme of regulation for claims management companies. Liability Section 1 of the Act makes statutory provision that, in determining whether the omission of certain steps amounts to ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Fire Brigade
A fire department (North American English) or fire brigade (Commonwealth English), also known as a fire company, fire authority, fire district, fire and rescue, or fire service in some areas, is an organization that provides fire prevention and fire suppression services as well as other rescue services. Fire departments are most commonly a public sector organization that operate within a municipality, county, state, nation, or special district. Private and specialist firefighting organizations also exist, such as those for aircraft rescue and firefighting. A fire department contains one or more fire stations within its boundaries, and may be staffed by firefighters, who may be professional, volunteers, conscripts, or on-call. Combination fire departments employ a mix of professional and volunteer firefighters. In some countries, fire departments may also run an ambulance service, staffed by volunteer or professional EMS personnel. Organization Fire departments are org ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Haley V London Electricity Board
Haley may refer to: People and fictional characters * Haley (given name), a list of people and characters with this name * Haley (surname) Geography * Haley, Tennessee, an unincorporated community in the United States * Haley Creek, Tennessee * Haley Glacier, Palmer Land, Antarctica Other uses * Haley Industries, a Canadian metal castings manufacturer * "Haley", a 2006 single by Needtobreathe See also *Hailey (other) *Halley (other) Halley may refer to: Science * Halley's Comet, officially designated 1P/Halley, a comet that becomes visible from Earth every 75-76 years * Halley (lunar crater), a lunar crater named after Edmond Halley * Halley (Martian crater), a Martian c ... * Hayley (other) {{disambiguation, geo ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Miller V Jackson
''Miller v Jackson'' 977QB 966 is a famous Court of Appeal of England and Wales case in the torts of negligence and nuisance. The court considered whether the defendant - the chairman of a local cricket club, on behalf of its members - was liable in nuisance or negligence when cricket balls were hit over the boundary and onto the property of their neighbours, Mr and Mrs Miller, the plaintiffs. Initially the Millers won an injunction at Nottingham High Court preventing cricket being played at the ground. This was overturned at the Court of Appeal which decided that an injunction was not appropriate because cricket should be allowed to be played at the club ground. However, it did decide to increase the damages paid to the Miller to account for past and any future damages caused to their property by stray cricket balls. Shortly after the conclusion of the case, the Millers moved house. The judgment was based on two key point of English common law. First that the Millers faced ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Bolton V Stone
''Bolton v. Stone' 9511 All ER 1078 is a leading House of Lords case in the tort of negligence, establishing that a defendant is not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. The plaintiff was hit by a cricket ball which had been hit out of the ground; the defendants were members of the club committee. Facts On 9 August 1947, during a game of cricket against the Cheetham 2nd XI at Cheetham Cricket Ground in Manchester, a batsman from the visiting team hit the ball for six. The ball flew out of the ground, hitting the claimant, Miss Stone, who was standing outside her house in Cheetham Hill Road, approximately from the batsman. The club had been playing cricket at the ground since 1864, before the road was built in 1910. The ground was surrounded by a fence, but the ground sloped up so the fence was above the level of the pitch where the ball passed, about from the batsman. There was evidence that a ball had been ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Roe V Minister Of Health
''Roe v Minister of Health'' 9542 All ER 131 is an English tort law decision of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales which has had a significant influence on the common law throughout the common law world. Facts Roe and Woolley underwent surgery on 13 October 1947 at the Chesterfield Hospital. It was managed under the general supervision of the Minister of Health. Before entering the operating theatre, an anaesthetic consisting of Nupercaine was administered by means of a lumbar puncture. The spinal anaesthetics had been given by Dr.Malcolm Graham. At that time, it was common practice to store such anaesthetic in glass ampoules immersed in a phenol solution to reduce the risk of infection. Unknown to the staff, the glass had a number of micro-cracks which were invisible to the eye but which allowed the phenol to penetrate. When used, the phenol-contaminated anaesthetic caused permanent paraplegia. A later analysis suggests that the most probable cause of the paralyses was a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
