Students: Team Homework No.1: 1. Write a case summary of Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 (House of Lords). The summary must not exceed 500 words. 2. Write a case summary of Jackson v. Drake University‚ 778 F. Supp. 1490 (S.D. Iowa 1991). The summary must not exceed 500 words. 3. Explain the basic rules of vertical and horizontal stare decisis. Team Homework No.2: 1. Present two judgements from the same case - Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 (House of Lords) - one majority and one dissenting
Premium Brown v. Board of Education United States Coca-Cola
Negligence‚ duty and Breach of Duty. To constitute a legal action against some one’s negligence‚ several requirements to be fulfilled. First one is that there must exist some duty of care towards the plaintiff by the defendant. The second one is that the defendant should breach such duty of care imposed on him. The third one is that the negligence done by the defendant should be the cause of the harm resulted to the plaintiff. The fourth one is that the harm should have some monetary value.
Premium Tort Law Negligence
defendant will only be liable if the plaintiff can prove that: 1. D owed them a duty of care 2. D was in breach of the duty of care 3. D’s breach of duty was cause of P’s loss 4. The damage suffered by P was not too remote Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 - Stevenson manufactured soft drinks - Drinks sold in opaque bottles - D’s friend bought her a ginger beer at a cafe - D drank some - Inside the bottle were the remains of a decomposing snail - D got very ill (shock & gastro enteritis)
Premium Tort Tort law Duty of care
In tort law‚ a duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn‚ breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability. The duty of care may be imposed by operation of
Premium Duty of care Tort Negligence
University of London Common Law Reasoning Institutions Essay Title: “There can be no real argument about it: judges make law. The declaratory theory is more or less nonsense.” Student Number: 120448995 Candidate Number: 150573 Historically there are lots of arguments by the philosophers and the critics that judges make law or not. Actually judges are meant only to interpret the law. This can be seen that somehow they are making law but the question arises whether this is lawful
Premium Common law Stare decisis Judge
the case before him or her but not arising in such a manner as requiring a decision is known as obiter dictum (a saying by the way). There may be several reasons for a decision provided by the judge in any given judgment and one must not assume that a reason can be regarded as ’obiter’ because some other ’ratio’ has been provided. Thus‚ it is not always easy to distinguish ratio decidendi from obiter dictum when evaluating the effects of a particular decision. A single decision of a superior court
Premium Precedent Stare decisis Common law
QUESTION 1 - IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE SOURCES OF LEGISLATION THAT ARE BINDING IN SCOTS LAW AND QUOTE AT LEAST ONE EXAMPLE. Each point of law has either a statutory source or a common law source. The statutory sources of law are: Legislation in the form of an Act of Parliament With effect from 1707 Parliament (comprising of the House of Commons‚ House of Lords and the Monarch) have produced Acts of Parliament (primary source of legislation) which may apply in Scotland. It is often difficult
Premium United Kingdom Common law Law
general area of tort law and compare it to that of a university and former student‚ cases have to be mentioned where the establishments of these rules were made to defend breaches in duty of care. Negligence as law was first conceptualized in Donoghue v Stevenson1. The claimant’s case was successful against the manufacturer (defendant) of the ginger beer and went on to institute “the modern law of negligence and established the neighbor test”.2 The case is relevant as it expanded the idea that
Premium Tort Law Negligence
owners fault. I don’t think Stevenson could not be liable as it was already in the drink when he accepted it from the supplier and so he had no control over it. He did not put the snail in on purpose so it wasn ’t his fault. However‚ Donoghue should be compensated as it was not right that she had that in her drink‚ she also received personal injury‚ so the supplier should be held liable and pay compensation. References E-lawresources.co.uk‚. ’Donoghue V Stevenson ’. N.p.‚ 2015. Web. 20 Mar.
Premium Common law Law Judge
sample should not be admissible in court as the seizure was unlawfully acquired and infringed Dyment’s autonomy‚ dignity and privacy in the name of collecting information. Justice Dickson’s interpretation of the s.8 of the Charter is best viewed as obiter dicta that needs to be taken into consideration for similar cases. La Forest J. provided that “[g]overments at all levels have in recent years recognized [the importance of protecting information] and have devised rules and regulations to restrict
Premium Law Human rights United States Constitution