Even where (a) and (b) are satisfied it must be 'just and reasonable' to impose such a duty.' 4 The Human Rights Act 1998 gives 'further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights.' 5 The aim of the Human Rights Act is as stated in section 6 (1), 'courts should not act in a way which is incompatibe with a Convention right, as illustrated in Richard Buxton's article (p.57). The Convention has had the greatest effect so far through Article 6 regarding a 'fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law,' 6 and also article 3, 'freedom from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.'
This approach has been adopted particularly where there is an overriding public or general interest which awards defendants a certain degree of immunity from litigation. Courts have often justified their actions of not imposing a duty of care upon public bodies using arguments that reflect their concerns should a different approach be taken. There has been a particular need to prevent the 'opening up of floodgates of liability1'. The underlying concern of this argument is that, particularly in influential cases, numerous different claims are likely to arise out of a single incident.
The case of Wheat v. E Lacon & Co Ltd1 defines an occupier as "a person who exercises a sufficient degree of control over premises that he/she ought to realise that any failure on their part...may result in injury to a person coming lawfully on there." According to this definition, Ingrid may find herself liable for the nuisance caused to other neighbours such as Karl even though Jane conducts the experiments causing the nuisance. Furthermore, as Ingrid is aware of the fact that there are cracks in the walls adjoining Jane and Karl's house, it is foreseeable that fumes from
There is a breach of this duty as expressed in the problem where Gerry is hit by a "car carelessly driven by Ingrid". Since both a duty and a breach can be established for both defendants the next issue to be looked at is with relation to causation. It is perhaps best to examine each defendant separately in relation to their liability towards Gerry since both events occurred independently of each other. Firstly, Gerry's rights need to be discussed in relation to his employer, Harry.
Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
Do they use key words from the title or question?
Do they answer the question directly?
Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
This essay has shown that a many number of acts and regulations have been broken. With more information on the case the court would either find the company and / or guilty of not meeting the said regulations set out in the acts. The company could be made liable through the health and Safety executive for criminal and / or the member for civil action for the injuries sustained.
If the company was made liable for the act of the employee (under vicarious liability) they would be able to claim from that such other contribution which could be found by the court to be just and equitable having regarded the extent of the employee's responsibility for the damage in question, from the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act, 1978 sections 1&2. (Goodman, 1988). This means the company could claim that the employee knew how to do his job properly and he ignored proper procedures, which then led to the accident taking place. So if the court agreed with this claim the employee would be required to pay the company the money they had to pay out to the injured member."
"In conclusion, the House of Lords has subsequently had the opportunity to review the principles laid down in Hatton. Following the Court of Appeal applied the Hatton criteria to individual cases in joined appeals, Hartman v South Essex Mental Health & Community Care NHS Trust, Best v Staffordshire University; Wheeldon v HSBC Bank Ltd; Green v Grimsby & Scunthorpe Newspapers Ltd; Moore v Welwyn Components Ltd; Melville v The Home Office29. The Court of Appeal has more recently re-emphasised the point that a successful claimant must show that it was reasonably foreseeable that (s)he would suffer a psychiatric illness as a result of the employer's breach of duty, not just that he would suffer from stress. Safety has always appeared to be a major preoccupation of the common law in the context of employment. Statutory obligations to the employee also demonstrate a clear concern with safety, but the health and general welfare of the employee are also elements of the duty. It is significant that the common law is beginning to adopt a similarly broad attitude towards the employee's well being30"
"It has become manifestly clear to myself that this area of law [breach of statutory duty] poses, all be it to different degrees, problems to academics and students alike, and maybe to a certain extent the courts, in not so much understanding but codifying the, if any, fundamental principles related to it. Like many areas of law, where there is a rule or presumption, there is an exception to that rule or presumption and breach of statutory duty is no different, an in my opinion provides a clear example of where there is a rule, there is an exception. This apparent lack of intelligible principles carries with it a great degree of uncertainty for those contemplating raising an action for breach of statutory duty due to the fact that a lot of the time it is the discretion of the court that will ultimately decide the fate of the case."
Marked by a teacher
This document has been marked by one of our great teachers. You can read
the full teachers notes when you download the document.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student essay
reviewing squad. Read the full review on the document page.
This document has been reviewed by one of our specialist student document
reviewing squad. Read the full review under the document preview on this page.