276°
Posted 20 hours ago

Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort

£9.9£99Clearance
ZTS2023's avatar
Shared by
ZTS2023
Joined in 2023
82
63

About this deal

INEVITABLE ACCIDENT: Inevitable accident also works as a defence of negligence. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly, be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. it means accident physically unavoidable. DUTY TO TAKE CARE: One of the essential conditions of liability for negligence is that the defendant owed a legal duty towards the plaintiff. The following case laws will throw some light upon this essential element. DUTY TO WHOM: Donoghue v. Stevenson, 1932 AC 562 carried the idea further and expanded the scope of duty saying that the duty so raised extends to your neighbour. Explaining so as to who is my neighbour LORD ATKIN said that the answer must be “the 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”.

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – 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”. urn:lcp:winfieldjolowicz0000roge:epub:74a92870-5cc4-4fa9-8129-d6e8f6c77b88 Foldoutcount 0 Grant_report Arcadia #4281 Identifier winfieldjolowicz0000roge Identifier-ark ark:/13960/t44r8mz74 Invoice 2089 Isbn 0421768509 The tort of negligence has been explained in a very lucid manner taking into consideration its meaning, essentials, denences and relevant case laws...

Wikipedia citation

I. MEANING: In everyday usage, the word ‘negligence’ denotes mere carelessness. In legal sense it signifies failure to exercise standard of care which the doer as a reasonable man should have exercised in the circumstances. In general, there is a legal duty to take care when it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to do so was likely to cause injury. Negligence is a mode in which many kinds of harms may be caused by not taking such adequate precautions. Ocr tesseract 5.0.0-alpha-20201231-10-g1236 Ocr_detected_lang en Ocr_detected_lang_conf 1.0000 Ocr_detected_script Latin Ocr_detected_script_conf 0.9950 Ocr_module_version 0.0.13 Ocr_parameters -l eng Old_pallet IA-WL-2000023 Openlibrary_edition BREACH OF DUTY TO TAKE CARE: Yet another essential condition for the liability in negligence is that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant committed a breach of duty to take care or he failed to perform that duty. In Nichols v. Marsland, (1875) LR 10 Ex.255; the defendant had a series of artificial lakes on his land in the construction or maintenance of which there had been no negligence. Owing to an exceptional heavy rain, some of the reservoirs burst and carried away four country bridges. It wa held that, the defendant was not liable as the water escaped by the act of God. Secondly, whether there is a relation of proximity between the parties. For example, was there a legal relationship or physical closeness? There was proximity in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Club, but not in Caparo.

Tortuous liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.” Lastly, the courts will consider the social importance of risky activity. If the defendant’s actions served a socially useful purpose then he may have been justified in taking greater risks as seen in Watt v Hertfordshire County Council.Comprehensive coverage of new legislation, as well as the impact on existing legislation of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union harm to property, i.e. land and buildings and rights and interests pertaining thereto, and his goods; A new section on damage in the law of negligence, incorporating discussion of Dryden v Johnson Matthey

The courts must first consider whether the consequences of the defendant’s acts were reasonably foreseeable. For example, damage or harm were reasonable foreseeable in Kent v Griffiths but not in Bourhill v Young.The first element in the claimant’s case is whether the defendant owed them a duty of care. This was first established by the speech of Lord Atkin in Donahue v Stevenson. Lord Atkins stated that: DUTY MUST BE TOWARDS THE PLAINTIFF- It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a duty to take care. It must also be established that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. Discussion of hundreds of recent cases, including Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales, Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Poole BC v GN (duty of care); Patel v Mirza (illegality); Wilkes v DePuy International (product liability); Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd (defamation); O v Rhodes (intentional infliction of physical or emotional harm); Willers v Joyce (malicious prosecution); JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov (No.14) (conspiracy); and five major Supreme Court decisions on vicarious liability and non-delegable duties, including Barclays Bank v Various Claimants and WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ: According to Winfield and Jolowicz- Negligence is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff [Ref. Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Ninth Edition, 1971, p. 45]. Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or do something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”.

Asda Great Deal

Free UK shipping. 15 day free returns.
Community Updates
*So you can easily identify outgoing links on our site, we've marked them with an "*" symbol. Links on our site are monetised, but this never affects which deals get posted. Find more info in our FAQs and About Us page.
New Comment