Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They are apparently allocated in different areas of law, functioning in England and Wales. In first case claimant is Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd and brings a sui

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They are apparently allocated in different areas of law, functioning in England and Wales. In first case claimant is Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd and brings a suit against Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd.1 The case lays down principles relating to negligence in law of tort, more precisely remoteness of damage. Second case Hadley v Baxendale2 is sequentially leading case on remoteness of damage in contract law. This principle links these two cases together and also demonstrates differences between them. According to Oxford dictionary of law3 remoteness of damage is "the extent to which a defendant is liable for the consequences of his wrongful act or omission." Cases mentioned above will be presented in light of this significant principle, which limit the types of loss that are recoverable. First of all the facts of the cases are relevant to present principles in area of tort and contract law. The Wagon Mound No 11case is about the defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound. It discharged furnace oil into Sydney Harbour. The wind and tide carried the oil beneath Claimant's wharf where on by Claimant's employees welding operations were being carried. Claimant's employees continued their work after being advised that they could safely weld. After about 55 to 60 hours the original discharge,

  • Word count: 2589
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Negligence as a tort.

Negligence as a tort may be defined as the breach of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff by not complying with the standard of care of the reasonable person which results in the plaintiff suffering damage. The damage may be personal injury, damage to property or just pure economic loss. It may in addiction, consist of psychiatric damage also known as "nervous shock". Before 1932, the Courts followed precedent in earlier cases that if a duty of care was held to exist in a similar earlier case then the judge held there was a duty of care but if a duty was held not to exist in an earlier case then the judge held there was no duty. There were very few factual situations where a duty was held to exist. In Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) Lord Atkin, in attempting to trace a common thread through existing authority, formulated a general principle - the "neighbour principle" - for determining whether, in any given case, a duty of care should exist. He said: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably forsee would be likely to injure your neighbour.... 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 significance of this principle was that it firmly

  • Word count: 1517
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

IN THIS REPORT I WILL INVOLVE THE CONCERNS, WHICH YOU ARE FACING ABOUT THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF YOUR BUSINESS

For: Steve Watkins From: Nathan Cozzetto Ref: Civil Liability Date: 29/12/04 IN THIS REPORT I WILL INVOLVE THE CONCERNS, WHICH YOU ARE FACING ABOUT THE LEGAL LIABILITY OF YOUR BUSINESS. .0 INTRODUCTION. As we are all aware the business, which we are involved in, deals with direct contact with the general public, also the activities on offer are a wide range of extreme types of sport. Being aware of this you have asked me to find out the legal liability that you may encounter. So picking out the main points I have decided to look at: * The law of negligence with the effect on the business. * The employer's liability for the actions of employees. * The liability of occupiers to visitors and trespassers. 2.0 THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE The definition of negligence "liability in the tort of negligence arises where foreseeable damage to the plaintiff is caused by the defendants breach of legal duty to take care." What this means in an understandable explanation is that, for example, someone who has decided to do an activity such as rock climbing, has fallen from a height, which has then lead to a foreseeable damage such as a broken leg or sprained ankle. As the client has obtained an injury they have looked into compensation for the accident if we as the company hadn't taken the necessary precautions to ensure the safety of all clients, such as safety equipment and making

  • Word count: 1115
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

A Tort System In Need of Repair

Adam Bielsky October 21st 2002 AP Economics/ Wilson A TORT SYSTEM IN NEED OF REPAIR A successful New York plaintiff's attorney drives his $145,000 Ferrari F50 down the streets of Manhattan with a bumper sticker under his license plate saying "ALL YOU NEED IS AN ACCIDENT AND A DREAM." Living in a luxurious mansion just outside of Westchester County, this attorney, who manages a successful liability practice, flamboyantly advertises on television the slogan, "If you've been hurt in any kind of accident, you may be entitled to a large cash reward." This slogan catches the eye of a woman who telephones this attorney to explain the injuries that she had recently suffered. A year later, a Bronx jury awards $4.2 million in damages to the woman who sued New York City after she slipped on a snowy sidewalk and damaged a knee joint while chasing her dog. We have all heard the outrageous stories about the woman who spilled coffee on herself and won millions or the doctor who won millions because his BMW had a bad paint job. Lawsuit abuse is a major problem in our society and an enormous drain on the U.S. economy. In the last 20 years alone, tort fillings have risen 60 percent. There is a tremendous need to reform America's tort system because it is currently not working. While some progress has been made on legislative tort reform, there is still a great need for more. In 1994,

  • Word count: 2517
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

I have been asked to advise the Crown Prosecution Service on the appropriate homicide charges to bring against Fred and Mike.

I have been asked to advise the Crown Prosecution Service on the appropriate homicide charges to bring against Fred and Mike. In English criminal law homicide is a generic term covering a number of offences. All homicides are concerned with the unlawful killing of a human being; what distinguishes them is either the state of mind of the defendant who caused the death, or the defences available. The most serious offence which may have realistically occurred in this case is murder. Murder, a common law offence, is the most serious of all offences and is punishable by a mandatory life sentence. The Actus Reus for murder is 'the unlawful killing of another human being', that is the death of a victim that is a 'life in being', Re Poulton1 where it was established that a 'life in being' meant that a child must be expelled from its mother's body, a foetus does not count as a life. The Mens Rea for murder expressed in Coke's2 classic definition refers to the defendant having 'malice aforethought' or more simply, the intention to kill or do grievous bodily harm. Re R v Vickers3, where the latter (GBH) was accepted as sufficient Mens Rea as if the defendant was willing to inflict grievous bodily harm, then how was he to know that the victim wouldn't die? This was later confirmed in the case of Cunningham4. With regards to 'intention' it was verified in the case of Woolin5 that

  • Word count: 1975
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

How far has the test for duty of care in negligence provided in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] been affected by the case of Osman v U.K. [1998]?

How far has the test for duty of care in negligence provided in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] been affected by the case of Osman v U.K. [1998]? The tort of negligence is one of the areas of law where the conflict between public policy and the need for justice is most evident. There are three factors involved in establishing negligence. These are: a duty of care, a breach of that duty and consequent damage1. Duty of care is the legal obligation to take reasonable cares to avoid causing damage 2. The concept of a duty of care in negligence arose in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson3. Lord Atkin in his speech formulated the 'neighbour principle'4. Since that time the tort of negligence has changed immensely and the role of policy has become very important in identifying when a duty of care is owed5. The House of Lords in Anns v Merton Borough Council extended the approach in Donoghue. Lord Wilberforce introduced the two-stage test. Along with Atkin's neighbour principle the policy question would arise: is there any valid policy reason to deny the existence of duty of care? The modern test was laid down in Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman6 where the damage to the plaintiff should be reasonably foreseeable, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant must be suffiently proximate. Moreover, to impose a duty of care it must be fair, just and reasonable. Although

  • Word count: 1439
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Tort Problem Question Answer

Introduction I will be considering each plausible defendant in turn, whom Mr. Colin (hereby referred to as the claimant) could recover compensation for his injuries under the law of tort. The principle area that this question is concerned with is the breach in duty of care due to negligence. Hence, we will be looking at whether or not the claimant is liable to succeed in this claim. The burden of proof lies upon the Claimant to prove that the elements of negligence were present and hence make the defendant(s) liable. Claim Against Kylie Claim against Negligence When we consider the actions of Kylie (hereby referred to as Defendant 1), it is plainly visible that her actions were negligent as she had wandered outside of the school property and stood in the centre of the road. A reasonable man would not have done so. Pedestrians are supposed to be aware of the traffic and move along the road with caution and young children especially are not allowed to be alone in the road , as per clause 4 of the Highway Code's Rules for Pedestrians1, which the Defendant 1 had failed to do. And so, we must conclude that the Defendant 1 had a duty of care towards the other road users, breached it, and hence caused the events that followed and the damages that were done. These align up to the elements of negligence and so the Claimant could bring up charges against Defendant 1 under

  • Word count: 1862
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Principles of Delict

George Buchan ( Sir Hugh Jewallet Principles of Delict Delict is part of the Law of Obligations. When studying delict, we find that the law imposes an obligation on each one of us not to cause unjustifiable harm to other persons or their protected interests. The main function of this area of civil law is to define the circumstances in which an individual or a corporate body, on finding that is interests are, or have been, harmed by another's harmful act, may seek a remedy. The wrongful act is described as a civil wrong or a delict and the remedies available are either an interdict to stop the wrong recurring or compensation, sometimes called reparation Delicts or Civil Wrongs do not lead to the criminal prosecution of the wrongdoer, but to civil proceedings in the form of an action for damages against the wrongdoer in a civil court. If the action is successful , a sum of money, which is called ,damages, or compensation, or reparation, will be paid to the injured party. The distinction between crimes and delicts does not depend on the kind of wrongful act itself. The conduct will be regarded as a crime if it is not only harmful to the victim but to the public at large. Such conduct must be suppressed and discouraged by the state. Therefore, the state takes action and the wrongdoer is prosecuted by public action. If the conduct is regarded as a wrong to only the

  • Word count: 14433
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Tort Law

INTRODUCTION The core purpose of this assignment will be to analyse how the neighbourhood principle which is related to pure economic losses is interpreted by the courts. In order to simplify and understand the decision the courts to made regarding negligence involving pure economic loss; we are first required to understanding what negligence means. The torts of negligence have specific elements which are the complex concept of legal duty of care, breach, causation and damage thereby suffered to the person whom the duty owed. 1 I shall give a short definition of pure economic losses relevant in tort law and what is implied in the neighbourhood principle interface in tort law. The definition for pure economic loss can be articulated as economic loss which is unaccompanied by physical injury or damage. It is also commonly known that pure economic loss is an umbrella term used to bring together various different policies regarding compensation, damages, lost income and loss.2 We therefore must discover the connections and differences between recovering damages or compensation in regard to pure economic loss in the neighbourhood principle. In the neighbourhood principle, to ask the question of whether C owes D a duty of care. The courts then hold the defendant liable to whether C ought to take care to look after D's interest.3 In the neighbourhood principle, the

  • Word count: 2111
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Burglary deception, and making off without payment.

Burglary deception, and making off without payment. Burglary charge: Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 creates two burglary offences; S 9 (1) (a)- a person is guilty of burglary if'...he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser...' with an intention to: i. steal ii. Inflict grievous bodily harm iii. Rape iv. Commit unlawful damage to the building or anything therein. S 9 (1) (b)- A person is guilty of this offence if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal or inflict grievous bodily harm. Clearly both burglary offences require that the defendant has entered the building or part of a building as a trespasser. In the case in question, the defendant has entered the department store, but it needs to be established whether or not he entered as a trespasser. Essentially a trespasser is someone who enters a building without express or implied permission. However the case of R v Smith and Jones (1976) has led to the extra provision that, a defendant who has permission to enter a building for particular purposes but then exceeds the express or implied conditions of entry will be a trespasser. So whilst the defendant would normally have permission to enter the department store at any time during its opening hours, if he entered the store with the prior intention to steal then it seems quite conceivable

  • Word count: 1327
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay