Tort question - negligent misstatement in the Tort of negligence
Tort question - negligent misstatement in the Tort of negligence a) Henry (C) has rights against Gordon (D) as far as C relied upon D as a professional, and D knew that C would rely on his expertise, as set out in Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964); whereby C was an advertising agency who had asked another firm; Easipower Ltd to buy advertising space on their behalf. The bank of Easipower; Heller said twice that they were respectable, but this was said with a disclaimer. The advertising agency then proceeded with a contract with Easipower. Easipower subsequently collapsed, and went into liquidation, which as a result left Hedley Byrne to pay for the advertising space. The House of Lords held that no duty of care was owed, due to there being no proximity. Also the disclaimer used prevented liability. The 5th limb of Hedley Byrne; the reasonably foreseeability test; 'did D voluntarily assume responsibility to give advice or information?' Which is best demonstrated where D undertakes some professional task, in the knowledge that it is really c who is really paying for it (albeit indirectly) and C will suffer if it is done poorly. This would only apply in a business context, such as in the case between Henry and Gordon; they had a 'special relationship'. Lord Reid stated that a 'special relationship' arose when 'it is plain that the party seeking information or advice was trusting
Discuss whether Lucy is liable in negligence to Kim and John, and discuss whether Lucy can claim any compensation in negligence or in deceit from King, giving full legal reasons for your answers.
Lucy is the owner of a guesthouse in the Blue Mountains, overlooking a beautiful valley. Although the views are lovely, the buildings are very exposed to the wind from the valley, which is extremely strong in winter and spring. Lucy approaches King, a local builder who also owns a hardware shop in the nearest town. She explains the problem she is having with the wind. King suggests she purchase the pine shutters he currently has on special. He advises her that these shutters would be perfect for her and should not need replacing for at least ten years. Lucy places an order for 20 shutters. King supplies the shutters to Lucy, who decides to save money by getting her boyfriend Malcolm to install them. The installation instructions are contained in a booklet supplied with the shutters. On the back of the instruction booklet, in very small writing, appear the words: 'These shutters are for decoration only and should not be installed in high wind areas.' Malcolm reads this clause but does not tell Lucy about it. After the shutters have been in place for several months, the pine begins to split. Lucy notices that some of the shutters are damaged and do not look very secure but she does nothing about it. On a particularly windy evening, one of the damaged shutters is blown from the window. It hits Kim, a guest staying in the house who was in the garden smoking a cigarette, and
Oedipus Rex Study Question Answers
Oedipus Rex Study Question Answers ) Oedipus is a great celebrity, a national leader of a city-state at a moment of crisis. The citizens have enormous respect, even love, for Oedipus. He is a person of enormous self-assurance and self-confidence, a man who is willing to take on full responsibility for dealing with the crisis, a task which he clearly accepts as his own unique challenge. The opening also makes clear to us that both the chorus's confidence in Oedipus and his strong sense of his own worth derive from past experiences where he solved the riddle of the sphinx in turn saving the city of Thebes. 2) In The Waste Land, Tiresias is the narrator of "The Fire Sermon." He muses over the meaningless of everything as a blind man who perceives the scenes through unseeing eyes. He is a link between life and death, seeing and unseeing, reality and nightmare. In Oedipus, Oedipus calls upon Tiresias to aid in the investigation searching for the killer of the previous king. At first, Tiresias refuses to give a direct answer and instead hints that the killer is someone Oedipus really does not wish to find. However, after being provoked to anger by Oedipus' accusation first that he has no foresight and then that Tiresias had had a hand in the murder, he reveals that in fact it was Oedipus himself who had committed the crime. Outraged, Oedipus throws him out of the palace,
Negligence Problem Question - a fire at Amber Valley School damages Mark's property.
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AMBER BOROUGH COUNCIL JUSTIN AND JASON Do they owe duty of care to Mark? Do they breach the duty of care? Causation Remoteness CHIGLEY SERVICES LTD (CS) HOME OFFICE THE FIRE ENGINE REMEDIES CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION From the above statement, Mark has suffered losses such as property damage, consequential economic loss, and loss of profits. Mark may have claims in tort of negligence. Negligence operates as a means to compensate a claimant for foreseeable losses caused by a defendant’s breach of duty of care.[1] In order to win his claims, he must prove four elements on preponderance of evidence and on balance of probabilities: . The party owed Mark a duty of care 2. The party breached such duty 3. The party’s breach caused the damage which he suffered and; 4. Mark must show that the damage suffered is not too remote from the party’s negligence. I will examine whether Mark will have any successful claims towards the relevant parties based on the elements listed. AMBER BOROUGH COUNCIL Amber Borough Council (ABC) is the local education authority who owns Amber Valley Primary School; the school was set fire by a group of youths and caused damage to the neighbouring property including Mark’s shop. The issue is whether ABC owes
Gross negligence and recklessness.
Gross Negligence and Recklessness In imposing criminal liability for a failure to recognise the risks, obvious to a reasonable person, there are at least two factors: the level of risk involved The seriousness of the potential harm Only where the possible harm is more serious and the risk is more obvious, do we distinguish recklessness from carelessness and impose liability. In assessing this, other issues may come in: The social utility of the action Thus, the surgeon who performs a necessary but dangerous operation may realise that there is a high probability of serious harm or even death but we do not blame him or her if the operation fails - we balance the risks that are undoubtedly being taken against the social utility of the activity. We regard skilled surgical care as socially useful and do not regard the surgeon who kills a patient as reckless whereas a player of 'Russian Roulette' would certainly be so, despite the odds of 6-1 against, since that is an action of no social value whatsoever. At this point, I am using the terms, 'reckless' and grossly negligent' as synonymous but the former term has had an uncertain history. It can be regarded as simply 'gross negligence' involving a major deviation from the standards of the reasonable man, not a state of mind at all. Alternatively it can be limited to those cases where the defendant subjectively recognises the
negligence in tort
LW1008 OBLIGATIONS 1 Negligence in tort has various meanings. It may refer to the tort of negligence or it may refer to careless behaviour. A person who totally disregards the safety of others but does not injure them is not guilty of negligence, although they may be morally reprehensible. On the other hand, the person who tries their best but fall below the standard set by the court and causes any damage will be liable.1 Negligence is judged by an objective standard set, where the court will look at what a 'responsible man or woman' would have done in the defendant's position. An example of this is in the case of Nettleship v Weston (1971)2 , the defendant was a learner driver who was given lessons by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was injured as a result of the defendant's negligent driving. It was held that all drivers, including learning drivers, would be judged by the standards of the average competent driver. Duty, breach, causation and damage are the elements that together make up any successful negligence claim. If the claimant wants to win in a negligence action, some certain points must be proven such as that the defendant owed them a duty of care; that the defendant was in breach of that duty; and that the claimant suffered damage caused by the breach of duty, which was not too remote. In negligence, it has to be proven by the claimant that there has been some
Unemployment Revision Question and Answers - Economics
ECON 4 - Unemployment Revision Questions . What is the definition of unemployment? Unemployment are those without a job but who are seeking work at current wage rates. . How is unemployment measured in the UK? Claimant Count The Claimant Count measure includes people who are eligible to claim the Job Seeker’s Allowance (JSA). The data is seasonally adjusted to take into account predictable seasonal changes in the demand for labour. Labour force Survey The Labour Force Survey counts those who are without any kind of job including part time work but who have looked for work in the past month and are able to start work immediately. The figure includes those people who have found a job and are waiting to start in the next two weeks . Explain the causes of cyclical unemployment and how it can be solved? Cyclical unemployment is involuntary unemployment due to a lack of aggregate demand for goods and services. This is also known as Keynesian unemployment. When there is a recession or a slowdown in growth, we see a rising unemployment because of businesses closing factories. It can be solved by the government by boosting ad – eg through expansionary fiscal policies that reduce tax and increase G spending. . What is structural unemployment – give 3 causes and examples of each? Structural unemployment occurs when people are made unemployed because of capital-labour
TORT ESSAY - NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE
TORT ESSAY - NUISANCE AND NEGLIGENCE A number of aspects of liability rise from this case study and each one will be discussed. With regards to the headaches suffered by Karl, it is necessary to look at private nuisance. Negligence is disregarded as it is assumed from the details in the case study that the headaches suffered are not so serious as to cause personal injury, it is just described as 'mere discomfort'. Such a claim under the law of nuisance requires three factors to be fulfilled. The first being a continuous interference. This is shown in De Keyser's Royal Hotel v Spicer Bros Ltd (1914) 30 TLR 257. From the case study one can assume that it is a continuing interfering act and not a one off. Secondly, the interference must be unlawful or unreasonable. This is up to the claimant to prove. The rule for this is sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (So use your own property as not to injure your neighbour's). The locality in this instance reflects the unreasonableness of Jane's actions. It occurred in a residential area and therefore such Gases were not to be expected. The duration of the act will also be taken into account. Because Jane is a young inventor it is assumed her work is an ongoing process and not a one off as explained above. The seriousness is also considered. In Walter v Selfe (1851), Knight-Bruce V C said "an inconvenience materially
Of Mice and Men: Question and answers
Of Mice and men. Q. Explain and comment on the relationship between George and Lennie. A. 1. George and Lennie share a unique and special relationship. 2. They are inseparable friends. 3. George takes Lennie as his responsibility and looks out for him. 4. George is tough and smart while Lennie is huge in size but childlike, shy and timid. 5. George supervises Lennie's moves to keep him out of trouble. 6. Lennie is loyal in his friendship and dependant on George. 7. George is tough on Lennie but also enjoys his company. 8. Lennie's obesession of fury things nearly cost them their job. 9. They have differences, yet share a common dream of a small place of their own. 10. They value each other for company and support. Q. How relevant is the play's title "Of Mice and men "to the events of the play? A. 1. The main character Lennie has an obsession for fury animals. 2. He likes to keep mice which he loves to pet with his thumb. 3. He tends to mishandle them and often kills them carelessly. 4. His best friend, George is always troubled by his actions 5. They even lost their job due to Lennie's obsession to feel a dress of a girl. 6. The play relates the relationship of the two characters and how one friend deals with the possessiveness of the other character. Q. What is the dream and why is it important in the play? A. 1. George and Lennie share a common
"Negligence" - Business & Cmpany Law
Question: "Negligence is an ever expanding area of law". Discuss making reference to case law. Negligence is a tort and an element of tort; it is the most important ever expanding area of law. Negligence can be described as a tort involving the branch of legal duty of care causing loss by a failure to the party to whom the duty is owed. So what is a tort? A tort is simply a civil wrong, "the law of tort is concerned with a description of those instances of conduct which the court primarily have rules should be prohibited and penalised" (IPA text, 2002). Tort is based on faults, most torts are committed by carelessness (negligence) rather than intentionally there can however be liability for an omission. The is no definite definition for the law of negligence this is part of the reason for its ever increasing nature, For example if a person unintentionally but negligibly commit a wrongful act to another(plaintiff) which cause a form of loss to the plaintiff, the person (defendant) will be held at fault in the court and the remedy will be damages. There are four important elements of negligence a plaintiff has to prove to succeed in an action of negligence: . The Plaintiff must prove the defendant owe him a duty of care 2. The Plaintiff must prove that there was a breach of duty of care by the defendant 3. The Plaintiff must Prove that he suffer injury,
