Question 1 What legal issues does this situation raise and what are the possible legal consequences? Issue 1--duty of care The tort of negligence to be constituted depend on whether the defendant violate the principle of ‘Duty 0f Care’. Because of the case of Donoghue v Stevenson [1]‚ ‘Duty 0f Care’ has been established in common law: 1. Defendant whether or not fulfill the duty of care. 2. That defendant whether or not breached that duty. 3. whether Breach the duty of care is the main
Premium Tort law Law Negligence
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE THE CHANGING COASTLINE OF LIABILITY John L. Powell Q.C. Even the briefest acquaintance with the world’s major financial centres‚ and especially Hong Kong‚ London or New York‚ immediately confirms that we live in world dominated by professionals. The magnificent multi-storey edifices adorning the shores of this and similar cities are the castles and palaces of the present age‚ proclaiming the influence and power of professionals
Premium Tort Negligence Common law
ASSIGNMENT 8: Tort of Negligence Issue 1: Chew’s Losses - $300‚000‚ Anxiety‚ Medical bills and the Closure of his stall. Suing Chew under misrepresentation A special relationship between Chew and Don [Hedley Byrne v Heller] Representor has reasonable grounds to believe his statement was true. Is a term; as Chew would not invest in the bonds if not for Don’s words. Sue for negligent misrepresentation (Using “But-for” test to assess damages) Suing under the Tort of Negligence‚ Chew has to prove:
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
seriousness was evident from the price. However‚ in Gibson‚ the Council had sent Gibson a form but on the form it was written that the “Council may be prepared to sell”. The Court held that these words lacked seriousness therefore no contract arose between parties. There are a number of instances whereby the statements made‚ said or written does not amount to offer but an invitation to treat. These include: display of goods (Fisher v Bell; Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots)‚ advertisements
Premium Contract
personal property. 6. If a person breaches a duty of care and another person suffers an injury‚ the breach must have caused the harm for liability to result. 7. In many states‚ the plaintiff’s negligence is a defense that may be raised in a negligence suit. 8. Negligence per se may occur on the violation of a statute. 9. Kelly is injured when she slips and falls on Lee’s sidewalk. To determine whether Lee owed a duty of care to Kelly‚ Lee is subject to the standard of
Premium Contract
! ! ! Liability for Negligence! 1. The Duty! PURE ECONOMIC LOSS ! Neighbour Test (Donoghue v Stevenson): Care must be taken to avoid acts Salient Features Test (Perre v Apand): Neighbour test is not enough in cases of which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who are pure economic loss to establish a duty of care‚ which caused a need for further persons I ought to reasonably have in contemplation as I take an action/omission. tests to identify
Premium Tort Tort law Negligence
found negligent by having a water spill on the floor. However‚ the factors of the time frame‚ that the spill was open and obvious‚ and that Trina did not know of the spill could remove her negligence. Additionally‚ Karen Logan was contributorily negligent here‚ absolving Trina of any negligence claim. Negligence To be negligent‚ the condition of defendant’s property must present an unreasonable risk of harm to people on the property. Here‚ the puddle of water in the middle of the floor was not
Premium Tort law Common law Tort
THE TORT OF NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE EXISTENCE OF A DUTY Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562‚ • Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence. He said: "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law‚ you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question‚ Who is my neighbour? … You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which
Premium Duty of care Tort Reasonable person
I. CASE 4.28: Contributory Negligence Facts: • Pride Accountants has been the auditor of Skyhign Ltd for the last five years. • The audited was made for the year ended 30 June 2009‚ where Pride Accountants issued an unqualified opinion of the financial reports. • Skyhigh is a largest client of Pride Accountants. • They have a good working relationship. • In the past‚ audits of Skyhigh have run smoothly and its financial reports have always been unqualified. • The audited was made for the
Premium Auditor's report Financial statements Balance sheet
Wayne is walking along a footpath near a golf course. He gets struck in the eye with a golf ball. There were no barriers between the golf course and the footpath. The place where Wayne was hit about 100m from a tee (a tee is where players drive the golf ball). Wayne can no longer work as a surgeon and he brings wants to bring legal proceedings against the golf course. REQUIRED Advise Wayne whether he will be successful in legal proceedings against the golf club? ISSUE Has the golf club breached
Premium Duty of care Golf Standard of care