In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In addition, nature of liability in tort of negligence is analyzed, including occupier liability, strict liability, health and safety issue
Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 3.1. Tortuous liability and contractual liability 3.1.1. UK legal system 3.1.2. Tortuous liability and contractual liability 3.2. Nature of liability of negligence 3.2.1. Legal aspects 3.3. Vicarious liability 3.3.1. General vicarious liability 3.3.2. Employer’s liability 3.3.3. Health and safety issues 3.3.4. Scenario analysis 4. Elements of tort of negligence II. CONCLUTION REFERENCES ________________ Memo To: Mr. Padmanaban Badri Narayanan From: Tran Nguyen Thao Suong Regarding: Report on Business Contract Date: 23th December 2012 Dear Mr. Padmanaban Badri Narayanan, I am Tran Nguyen Thao Suong from class SUD11, University of Sunderland. I wrote this memo to you in order to support you approach my work easily. I have spent times for doing this assignment. During the work, I understand some certain aspects of tort. I have also earned lots of essential knowledge and developed skills relating to the practical application of tort and other issues of liability and negligence relating occupier liability and vicarious that I can apply in real life situations. In addition, I discussed with my friends to sort out problems and come up with solutions. This attempt supports me a lot and enhances my teamwork ability.
What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive?
What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive? The law generally requires that the accused possess a 'blameworthy' state of mind at the time the act comprising the offence was committed, and the basic presumption is that mens rea is required for every offence ('actus non fit reus nisi mens sit rea'), authority for which stems from Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] - from coursewrok work info "There is a presumption that mens rea ... is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals, and both must be considered."cogc gcr segcgcw orgc gck ingc fogc gc. This proposition, that mens rea is the default position for an offence unless its implication is clearly outweighed by other factors, was secured in Sweet v Parsley [1970]. Per Lord Reid: "it is universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted." Thus the requirement of intention is presumed where a matter is uncertain. However, many statutes do not use the language of 'knowingly' or 'intentionally' acting; in the case of such strict liability offences, usually regulatory offences without the
Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and women are treated differently from the general public in proceedings that have their origin on the field of play.
Sports Assignment Question 2 Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and women are treated differently from the general public in proceedings that have their origin on the field of play. Answer Sport plays a major part in the culture of today's society. Many people spend considerable time in front of the television, in sports grounds and traveling all over the country to support their respective club whether it be football, rugby, cricket or netball etc. However whilst playing, spectating or just generally being involved in a sport, things can go wrong and this very often results in an action in the civil or criminal courts. Sporting incidents should be dealt with like any other civil or criminal action, however there is evidence this is not happening in many cases in both areas of law. There can be several areas of civil law where claims can be made. These are Negligence, occupier's liability, defamation, nuisance, trespass and animals. However not all these will need to be looked at, the main ones being Negligence and occupiers liability. It is in the area of negligence that I will look at the sporting cases and how they differ from non - sporting cases of civil wrongs. I will be looking at participators, clubs, referees and spectators. In the second section I will be looking at negligence and injuries in football and how
LAW OF DELICT
Law case studies for Delict DEBBIE GUNN CASE STUDY 1 Q1) What is a duty of care? A duty of care can be defined as a legal obligation, to give a level of care towards another individual, to avoid injury or harm to that individual or their property. It is that 'a person should take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that they could reasonably foresee to harm their neighbour'. This can be defined as say a father had a duty of care to a sick child to get that child to a doctor, if that father had done so he had acted to help that child so had acted in his duty to care, had he failed to do so and not have called the doctor to help then this would have been classed as an 'omission' or failure to act. In Danny's case he did not take reasonable care Under the law of Delict negligence is harm caused unintentionally and negligence claims come about because the person who is at fault or caused the harm owed a duty of care and has breached this by causing harm, loss or damage to the pursuer. In order to succeed when bringing a negligence claim the pursuer must show that the defender owed him/her a duty of care and the defender was in the position to cause harm which they failed to prevent occurring and the pursuer must also show that it was the defenders breach of duty that was the main cause for the loss or harm caused by him/her. The legal precedent for
Law of Torts
Law Unit 5 - Law of Torts If a person has done something wrong in civil law, for example like breaking an agreement or being careless and causing injury to another person or his property, then these wrongs are not punishable by prison sentence, rather they are 'civil' wrongs, and aim of civil law is to compensate the victim or to put right the wrong in some other way, this called Law of Torts. Now I am going to look at Occupiers Liability Act 1957 because the injuries to Nasma and Peter arisen from the state of the premises. Occupiers liability concerns the liability of an 'occupier of land' for the claimant's injury or loss or damage to the property suffered whilst on the occupier's premises. Therefore occupiers liability must be distinguish from damage caused by the defendant's use of his or her land, which the claimant suffers on his or her land. Occupiers liability is not given a definition under the 1957 act, section 1(1) merely states; 'in consequence of a person's occupation or control of premises'. The test for deciding whether a defendant in fact an 'occupiers' is determined by the degree of control arising from their presence or activity on the premises. Wheat v. Lacon (1966) in this case a manager of a pub was given the right to rent out rooms in his private quarters, by the owner. When paying guest fell on the unlit staircase, the HL held that both the
Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny down some steps. Jenny suffered a very badly broken leg that needed surgery. She also suffered cuts and bruises to her other leg.
Paper 3 The Facts Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny down some steps. Jenny suffered a very badly broken leg that needed surgery. She also suffered cuts and bruises to her other leg. Question (in 3 parts) (a) Briefly explain the legal requirement that actus reus and mens rea should be contemporaneous (occur together). (5 marks) Plan A brief explanation of actus reus - guilty act, omission, state of affairs, result crimes A brief explanation of mens rea - guilty mind, types of mens rea (intention, recklessness) The requirement that actus reus & mens rea must coincide A brief explanation of exceptions to actus reus & mens rea coinciding - crimes of strict liability Essay Most crimes (except strict liability) require the prosecution to prove both the actus reus (the guilty act) and the mens rea (the guilty mind) of the crime. What they are required to prove will be set out in the definition of the offence. There are four types of actus reus. The most usual is a positive voluntary act on the part of the defendant. Secondly in result crimes the criminal act by itself may not be enough - for example for a murder charge a death must have taken place. Unusually there may be a state of affairs crime such as occurred in R v Larsonneur or Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent where the defendant has little or no control
I am the company solicitor for Everlasting Estates Ltd., and have been required to draft a report for the Board of Directors of Everlasting Estates, explaining the company's liability and any defenses which the company may rely on.
Glossary Terms . Tort - A series of duties imposed primarily by the law to regulate human contact. 2. Damages - Monetary compensation. 3. Plaintiff - Person who incites civil proceedings. 4. Defendant - The person who is accused of a crime. 5. Negligence - If a person acts carelessly and as a result of that carelessness, another is injured or suffers loss it may be that, that person is negligent in the law of tort. Not all careless acts will allow the wronged person to sue the wrongdoer for negligence. 6. Common Law - The law made by judges and contains in the decisions of judges. Common Law requires the employer to: * Owe duty of care towards his employees * Provide competent staff * Provide a safe system at work * Provide safe apparatus * Provide safe premises The major statutory duties giving rise to employer's civil liability are: * Construction regulations * Factories Act * Simultaneous criminal offence under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Duty of care - The plaintiff (victim) must show that the defendant (wrongdoer) owes him a duty of care in law. Breach of duty - If established that a duty of care is owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, then the question of fact is whether or not the defendant is in breach of that duty of care. Breach of duty of care will have occurred if the defendant is shown to have acted in an unreasonable manner in the
Murder, manslaughter, assaults, sexual offences and defences.
Murder, Manslaughter, Assaults, Sexual Offences and Defences (1678 words). Section 18 (wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent) The Actus Reus of Section 18 Of The OAPA 1861. S.18 OAPA penalises 'whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously...wound or cause any grievous bodily harm...with intent to do some grievous bodily harm...' S.20 OAPA penalises 'Whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously wound or inflict any grievous bodily harm...(GBH)'. The actus Reus under these two offences can either be wounding OR causing/inflicting GBH. 'Wounding' means that the continuity of the whole skin is broken - not merely a scratch. Broken limbs, where there is no breaking of the skin, are not wounds. However they do come within GBH, which is defined in R v. Smith {2001} 1 AC 146 as 'really serious harm', different in kind to the 'interference with health and comfort' suggested as the test of ABH in R v. Miller {1975} 1 WLR 1222. Whether the defendant has, 'caused' grievous bodily harm is purely a matter of causation. Lord Mackay in R v. Mandair (1995) 1 AC 208 stated: 'In the case of "cause", the nature of the connection is immaterial (provided the chain of events is short enough to satisfy the criminal law of causation)...' Jack has clearly committed the actus reus of homicide as he has caused James death and there is no intervening causes that may possible break the
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW QUESTION : 1 Sara was teaching her husband, Tom to drive but he was a slow learner frequently subjected to excessive criticism by Sara and there were numerous arguments between them. During the course of a lesson, Sara suggested to Tom that he was not using the clutch properly. Tom made no reply but, a few minutes later, suddenly steered the car off the road into a ditch. At the time, Sara was not wearing her seatbelt and she was thrown through the windscreen and badly injured. Had she received prompt treatment, she would probably have survived but her body was not discovered until three hours later. Tom had also been injured in the crash and he was found by Vic an hour later, wandering about outside Vic's house, rambling and incoherent. Vic took him in and gave him a very large glass of brandy. Tom then left the house, walked along a pavement and crossed a main road in front of fast moving traffic. Una was driving on the road at the time and, in swerving to avoid Tom, ran into a queue of people at a bus stop and killed Walter. When stopped and questioned, Tom was though to be drunk but he maintained that he had no recollection of anything that had occurred after the original crash involving Sara. (a) Analyse the facts above to show whether and how Tom may be guilty of Sara's murder. How might he seek to reduce his liability for her death? (b) (i) Explain
Legal Obligations
Resit Coursework. Obligations II. Having established that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care (and in this case it is assumed that this has been established), it will next be necessary for the courts to decide whether the defendant has breached that duty. This first involves an assessment by the court of how, in the circumstances, the defendant ought to have behaved; what standard of care should he have exercised. This standard is that of the ordinary and reasonable citizen and not that of the defendant himself: an especially careful defendant will not be held liable because he fell short of his own high standards, however, a defendant whose personal conception of what is reasonable fails to match that of the court will have no defence based on his belief that he acted carefully. Although the concept of the reasonable man is well developed and accepted in tort law it is nevertheless a general and sweeping statement. Sir Alan Herbert said: 'the reasonable man is .. devoid of any human weakness, with not one single saving vice' Although this is not quite true, it is difficult for the courts to create a reasonable, fictional man and I believe it important for them to take into account social and moral change when comparing the defendant to this fiction. In practice 'reasonable care' can be manipulated to produce standards ranging from the very low to the
