Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords , following the Court of Appeal , set out a "three-fold test". In order for a duty of care to arise in negligence:
The doctrine of contributory negligence was dominant in U.S. jurisprudence in the 19th and 20th century. [3] The English case Butterfield v.Forrester is generally recognized as the first appearance, although in this case, the judge held the plaintiff's own negligence undermined their argument that the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury. [3]
The test of an ordinary average person would not be appropriate for defendants that profess or hold themselves out as professing a certain skill. The "man on the Clapham omnibus" does not have that skill and the conduct expected from a skilled professional is not the same as could be expected of an ordinary man in the same circumstances. [1]
Negligence (Lat. negligentia) [1] is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. [2]Within the scope of tort law, negligence pertains to harm caused by the violation of a duty of care through a negligent act or failure to act.
The basic test for establishing causation is the "but-for" test in which the defendant will be liable only if the claimant’s damage would not have occurred "but for" his negligence. Alternatively, the defendant will not be liable if the damage would, or could on the balance of probabilities , have occurred anyway, regardless of his or her ...
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law.It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6, was a landmark United Kingdom criminal law case where the required elements to satisfy the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter at common law were endorsed and refined. [1]
Robinson is considered one of the most important cases in 2018, as it clarifies the liability of the police to members of the public and the general test towards finding a duty of care in general, in a significant shift from Caparo, which held that there was a three-part test to determining duty of care. [5] [6] [7]