Blake v. Barnard 1840 A man put his gun at the head of another and said‚ ’Be quiet or I blow your brain out’. No assault. If the person did what he is told nothing would happen. Contrast: READ v. CROKER (1853). Byrne (Canada) 1968 Canada Supreme Court A man went into a bank. Having a jacket over his hand‚ he said: I have a gun‚ give me the money or I shoot. No assault. He did not show the gun. Persuasive precedent. Janvier v. Sweeny 1919 Court of Appeal Private detectives tried
Premium Tort Tort law
Tort case scenarios Tort Case Scenarios Tort Case Scenarios The scenarios below provide several examples of torts to include negligence‚ unintentional torts‚ intentional torts‚ assault‚ battery‚ etc. Torts are civil wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit. These wrongs result in an injury or harm constituting the basis for a claim by the injured party (Cornell‚ 2010). Scenario 1 Scenario 1 has multiple instances that happen during the game that raises attention between
Premium Tort Tort law
cannot recover damages if he suffers harm * To prove‚ must have: * Full knowledge of the risk * Section 5F & 5G * * an unpressured decision to run the risk in question (voluntariness) * Common law * A person who was constrained by the circumstances and was constrained from making a free choice will not be regarded as acting voluntarily * This is not met if: * P has a brief interval to make their decision
Premium Tort law Law Duty of care
The issue is whether the defendant Sykt Jebat can be held liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs‚ Sam‚ Jojo and Lan under the law of Occupiers’ Liability. Occupiers’ liability concerns injury caused to a plaintiff as a result of defective condition of the land‚ building and premises. In order to establish occupiers’ liability‚ the occupier must have a sufficient degree of control over the premise. Lord Denning in Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd (1966) held that “whenever a person has a sufficient
Premium Tort law Standard of care Duty of care
TORTS FINAL EXAM OUTLINE INTENTIONAL TORTS 3 2. Battery 3 3. Assault 3 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 3 5. False Imprisonment 4 6. Trespass 4 6.1. Trespass to Land 4 6.2. Trespass to Chattels 4 6.3. Conversion 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 5 7. Consent (Privilege) 5 8. Self Defense (Privilege) 5 8.1. Self-Defense by Force Not Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm 5 8.2. Self-Defense by Force Threatening Death or Serious Bodily Harm
Premium Tort Common law Law
The law places a limit upon the extent to which the defendant is liable for the loss which occurs from his breach of a duty of care to the plaintiff‚ once it is established that the loss sustained by the plaintiff is one recoverable in negligence. The test of remoteness of damage limits this liability by defining certain types of damage or losses as being irrecoverable as a matter of law. The test is carried out to protect the defendant in breach of their obligations from unusual or unexpected claims
Premium Tort law Duty of care Plaintiff
September 16‚ 2006 Worksheet 1 EMPLOYMENT TORTS Employer’s Liability 1. Introduction The basis of the liability of an employer for negligence in respect of injury suffered by his employee during the course of the employee’s work is twofold: 1. He may be liable for breach of the personal duty of care which he owes to each employee; 2. He may be vicariously liable for breach by one employee of the duty of care which that employee owes to his fellow employees. The action against
Premium Employment Tort law Tort
Tort Reform As with most debates fought in the popular press‚ there is some truth on both sides. At the center of this controversy is the way the legal system handles disputes or torts. A tort by definition is not just actions resulting in physical injury. Slander‚ fraud‚ and trespass are also torts. However‚ most of the argument on tort reform‚ concerns cases involving physical injury‚ medical malpractice and product liability. America is the most sue happy society in the world. We take our private
Premium Law Common law Tort
limitations) 5. Survival action: an action the decedent had before his death that is brought by his executor/administrator on behalf of the estate 6. Felony-Merger Doctrine: CL does not allow recovery for an act that was both a tort and a felony‚ but it is allowed under modern US law 2. Selders v. Armentrout a. Facts: 3 minor children killed in a car accident b/c of D’s negligence b. Issue: How should damages for wrongful death be calculated? c. Damages i. Traditional Rule: Pecuniary losses(money
Premium Tort Tort law
This case is in regards to the tort of negligence‚ with the central issue being causation. With the evidence provided‚ it is necessary to determine whether Vera and PC Webster are owed a duty of care and subsequently have any claims. Firstly‚ the ’but for’ test is to be applied‚ in which the courts ask: ’but for the defendant’s action‚ would the damage have occurred?’ The courts have accepted that drivers automatically owes a duty of care to every other road user ‚ including pedestrians. Jack’s
Premium Law Tort Tort law