Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep.490 (C.P. 1837): An important case in the definition of a reasonable person standard in which a man negligently stacks hay that catches fire. Kasturilal Ralia Ram V. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039; 1965 SCR (1) 375 : is a Landmark case on Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300(1)-State Liability for tortious acts ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United ...
Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1932) is a US tort law case regarding negligent misstatement, decided by Cardozo, C.J. It contained the now famous line on "floodgates" that the law should not admit "to a liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class."
In the tort of negligence, the term used is duty of care [7] The case of Donoghue v Stevenson [8] [1932] established the modern law of negligence, laying the foundations of the duty of care and the fault principle which, (through the Privy Council), have been adopted throughout the Commonwealth. May Donoghue and her friend were in a café in ...
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords.It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.
Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...
In establishing the basis of the case, Baron Alderson, made what has become a famous definition of negligence: Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
The tort of trespass was inapplicable, as the flooding was deemed not to be "direct and immediate"; the tort of nuisance was rejected as this was a one-off event. [13] The case was first heard by Judge John Mellor and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpool Assizes; [14] a court order led to an arbitrator from the Exchequer of Pleas being appointed in December 1864. [15]