negligence caustion assult battery
Tobias' threatening attitude towards Edward requires a consideration of what constitutes an assault. An assault is defined as an act which intentionally causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force on his person.1 When Tobias phoned Edward, and utter the words "I am going to kill you and ensure that you never play ruby again". These words alone may be no more than mere abuse, and the content of his words are insuffient to amount to a threat. If words are to account to assault, the Burden of proof is on Edward to show that he reasonable appended harm. If the words themselves do amount to a threat, there are no legal authority that words alone could constitute an assault.2 However this may now be challenged in the House of Lords case in R v Ireland.3 It was accepted that a silent phone call could amount to an assault. Accordingly, it is now clear that the use of words alone may be an assault taking into account all the surrounding circumstances. If Tobias words are capable of amounting to an assault, there remain the issue that there cannot be an assault unless the threat is immediate. The fact that Tobias utter these words to Edward over the phone rather than in person or face to face, a reasonable person would hold that, Tobias is not in a position to inflict immediate and direct harm on Edward. Thus, Edward wasn't under immediate threat
Education Law - Educational negligence
Education Law 2002-03 EDUCATIONAL NEGLIGENCE Since the X (Minors) decision of the House of Lords in 1995 the courts, in a series of important decisions, have recognised that the duty of care resting with teachers and other educational professionals applies not only to the general care and well-being of pupils, such as the prevention of injury due to lack of proper supervision (see eg Beaumont v Surrey County Council (1968) 66 LGR 580, Nwabudike v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [1997] ELR 35, Wilson v Governors of Sacred Heart Roman Catholic School [1998] ELR 637, CA, Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549, J v North Lincolnshire County Council [2000] ELR 245), warning of dangers (Crouch v Essex County Council (1966) 64 LGR 240) or both (Woodbridge School v Chittock [2002] EWCA Civ 915, 26 June 2002, CA). It now extends to the performance of professional duties such as identifying and responding effectively to pupils' needs and to school problems, such as bullying. These notes chart the relevant case law developments and outline the effects of the relevant decisions, starting with X (Minors). You are strongly advised to read all cases in these notes marked*. . X (Minors) *X and Others (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council (etc) [1995] ELR 404; 2 AC 633; 3 WLR 153; 3 All ER 353; 2 FLR 276, HL The three education cases decided
Drink Driving and Tort of Negligence Analysis
Tort of Negligence Homework A) If David were considering suing Frank for Negligence, he would need to prove: * That Frank owed Him a duty of care. * That Frank had breached that duty of care. * That He suffered a loss as a result of that breach. In my opinion, the duty of care would accord with that of the Highway Code. That would require that one would drive on the left-hand side of the road, and drive within legislative rules of consumption of alcohol whilst driving. By driving on the wrong side of the road and by consuming alcohol in excess I can assume that Frank was negligent in respect of his legislative requirements. There is a requirement in law that a driver of a motor vehicle should be in full control of driving a motor vehicle at all times. When David's girlfriend grabbed his arm this seriously breached his requirement to be able to do so. However I would argue that David could not have foreseen that this action on his girlfriends part would have distracted him, to such an extent that he could have foreseen, the dire consequences of turning his head away from the road. Frank in consuming alcohol to such an extent that he was very drunk, in my view, negates any defence that he may have for driving on the wrong side of the road. However, I would like to ask at this stage what very drunk means i.e.: had he consumed alcohol to the extent that his ability to
Tort Law. Evaluate the tort of liability in negligence.
Evaluate the tort of liability in negligence (18) Negligence is acting carelessly towards someone you are lawfully required to care for. There are three stages of a successful negligence claim, all of which the claimant has to prove. The burden of claim lies on the claimant to prove the defendant had a duty of care, the defendant breached their duty of care and the claimant suffered a loss as a result of the breach. The laws around negligence have developed and changed over a number of years, it is a well developed system although it also has its drawbacks. The first factor to consider when evaluating liability in negligence is the fault based system, this looks at how the claimant must prove everything in order to be compensated. Cost is an issue of this as bringing a claim and collecting the evidence to prove the defendant liable can be very expensive, especially if expert witnesses are used to give better quality evidence. The costs of bringing a claim may deter the claimant from doing so. The delays are another issue. Bringing a claim to court will cause delays in gathering evidence to prove their claim. Delays are also an issue if insurance companies are involved to pay out a money, this is because they are suspicious of whether claims are genuine or not and therefore will investigate every claim before paying out any money, this can be a timely process, although the
"A duty of care arises not merely when damage is reasonably foreseeable, but when it is just and reasonable to impose liability" Critically discuss.
INTRODUCTION As seen occurring for the past decade, the doctrine of duty of care occupies principles that are disproportionate to the importance in tort cases which comes to court. Therefore, where decisions have been appealed and overruled this would affect the whole structure of development of negligence law. Every potential new duty of care allowed has the effect of increasing the numbers of tort cases being brought in the future. This proves that tort plays an important role in society. As a result of such circumstances, the courts are faced with considerable problems having to decide between doing justice in individual cases or prevent a vast increase in the number of future cases, which are policy reasons1. Therefore, to discover whether duty of care arises when it is reasonably foreseeable, or whether other policy reason would be taken into account to impose such duty, it is necessary to view the development of the law with regards to landmark cases as tort law is largely base on common law rather than statute base. The aim of the discussion would be towards how the courts create requirements and implications to impose duty of care through the evolving progression of principle ORIGIN OF NEGLIGENCE Negligence is a universal concept in the legal system and is largely concern with compensating people who suffered damage as a result of others' carelessness. But as a
Contract and Negligence Case law assignment.
Sana ArfanAspects of Contract & NegligenceID: 1199296 Unit 5 – Aspects of Contract and Negligence for Business Assignment 3 Sana Arfan ID: 1199296 Tortious Liability vs. Contractual Liability In a tortious claim the defendant may not have any previous transaction or relationship with the claimant however in contrast to that for contractual liability the defendant and claimant must have a purpose to create legal relations. Elaborating on this further there is supplementary sovereignty in contractual law where as in tortuous liability it is more of an imposed nature. The claimant will receive compensation for damages and expected earnings in the case of contractual liability and in comparison to this the claimant is only entitled to damages in the case of tortuous liability. Another difference is that there is more privacy in the contract in the case of contractual liabilities as the parties who are involved in the contract are the ones who can actually sue for damages as in the case of Atkin v Sounders (1942) whereas in tortuous liabilities any one as a third party who had suffered losses or damages can claim compensation from the defendant whether they are in a legally binding agreement or not. Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability can be defined to be a ‘situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person’ Acas (2009).
Economic loss and the law of negligence in delict.
INTRODUCTION The element of economic loss provides many difficulties to the law of negligence in delict. There are three main classifications of economic loss; derivative, secondary and pure economic however for the purpose of this essay I shall be examining mainly the concept of pure consequential economic loss. This type of loss in general is not recoverable in negligence and there is no duty to avoid causing financial loss as in the words of Lord Bridge in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council 1991: "By reason of some special relationship of proximity which imposes on the tortfeaser a duty of care to protect against economic loss." What this is saying is that a duty of care can arise irrespective of pure economic loss. The pursuer must satisfy what we call the enhanced requirements of proximity, and this was highlighted in Capro Industries plc v Dickman, and it must be fair and reasonable to impose such a duty. Thus the point I will be highlighting is that negligent solicitors may owe a duty of care and thus incur liability in delict to disappointed beneficiaries where wills have been administered negligently. The case, which has given great significance to this area of law, was White v Jones. LEGAL BACKGROUND In general it appears to be that in Scots law, a solicitor acting for a client may be concurrently liable both in contract and in delict, and the solicitor
Advise Sharon in her action in negligence.
Introduction to the problem Sharon was walking on the beach at dusk, and has stepped on a used syringe and contracted hepatitis. Sharon blames the local council for not keeping the beach clear of syringes, as the council was aware of intravenous drug use in the area. Sharon seeks advice as to the council's liability under the common law and further advice will also be given if the incident occurred in NSW and the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) applied. Part A For Sharon's action in negligence to succeed, she must prove that: ) The council owed her a duty of care and breached that duty. 2) By reason of the breach she suffered injury. 3) A reasonable person in the position of the council would have foreseen the injury Sharon suffered, even if the precise manner of its occurrence is not necessarily foreseeable: Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963) UK. 4) The council was aware of the problem of intravenous drug use in the area, but failed to look further: Perre v Apand P/L (1999) 198 CLR 180 at 230, and the failure was due to the council's operational decision and action: Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728. If the council argues in defence that was not aware of the problem so the standard of care should be lowered, Sharon can refer to Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 75 ALJR 992, in which it was said that if the risk is unknown or latent and only
The principle requirements of the tort of negligence.
The principle requirements of the tort of negligence are that the defendant (D) should owe the plaintiff a duty of care that there should be a breach of that duty and that breach of duty should cause actionable damage to the plaintiff, which is not too remote. Donoghue v Stevenson1 established the principle that D owes a plaintiff a duty of care if there is a relationship of neighbourhood in the sense that the plaintiff can be reasonably foreseen as likely to be affected by Ds act or omission. Put by Lord Atkin, ' persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.' The Caparo2 case provided an extension of the rules set out in Donoghue v Stevenson. Lord Bridge's opinion in this case is now regarded as the classic exposition of the modern approach to establishing a duty of care. In his analysis, he laid down a 'three-stage' test for the existence of a duty of care, the ingredients of which are (a) foreseeability, (b) proximity, and (c) the fair, just and reasonableness of recognising such a duty. Lord Steyn reaffirmed these rules in Marc Rich and Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd. Regarding foreseeability, it must be decided whether it was foreseeable at the time of the relevant conduct (awarding of
Explain the criteria needed for a successful negligence action.
Civil Litigation: Negligence Explain the criteria needed for a successful negligence action. Negligence in law is a tort, which is a civil wrong and is one of the most important torts in modern law. Negligence is concerned with the breach of a legal duty to take care with the result that damage is suffered to the claimant. The tort of negligence is concerned with compensating persons who have suffered damage, whether it is personal injury or damage to their property, as a result of the carelessness of others, but there must be a legal duty of care owed by that other towards the person who has suffered damage as a result of their carelessness. There are three elements that must be fulfilled in order for a claim of negligence to be successful. They are: ) Duty of care 2) Breach of duty 3) Resultant loss or damage The law of negligence as a tort as we now know it developed from a landmark ruling in the case of Donoghue V Stevenson (1932). In this case a friend in a cafe bought a woman a ginger beer. The woman, Mrs Donoghue, poured into a glass and drank some of the ginger beer from an opaque bottle. She then went on to pour the rest of the ginger beer into her glass, at which point the remains of a decomposing snail also came out of the bottle. As a result of drinking a ginger beer, Mrs Donoghue became ill and suffered from gastroenteritis and shock. She then went on to
