Reading Michalos‚ ‘Douglas v Hello: the final frontier’‚ [2007] Ent. L.R. 241-246 Aplin‚ ‘The development of the action for breach of confidence in a post-HRA era’ [2007] IPQ 19-59 Aplin‚ ‘The relationship between breach of confidence and the "tort of misuse of private information’ [2007] Kings Law Journal 329-336 Aplin‚ ‘Commercial confidences after the Human Rights Act’ [2007] EIPR 411-419 Arnold‚ ‘Confidence in exclusives: Douglas v Hello! in the House of Lords’ [2007] EIPR 339 Arnold‚
Premium
In this case we are dealing with tort law and more specifically negligence in tort law. Negligence in tort law requires the plaintiff to prove the following: * The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general public‚ including the plaintiff); * The defendant violated that duty; * As a result of the defendant ’s violation of that duty‚ the plaintiff suffered injury; * The injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant
Premium Tort Contract Reasonable person
ARTICLE 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of his injury‚ he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only contributory‚ the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the defendant’s lack of due care‚ the plaintiff may recover damages‚ but the courts shall mitigate the damages to be awarded. (n) REQUISITES FOR A QUASI-DELICT 1. There must be an act or omission; 2. There must be fault or negligence attendant in the same act or omission;
Premium Causality Tort Tort law
TORTS – INTENTIONAL TORTS PRIMA FACIE Battery is the (1) intentional infliction of (2) a harmful or offensive (3) contact. Offensive includes acts damaging to a “reasonable sense of dignity.” No knowledge of contact is required. (Rationale: protection of personal integrity. Freedom from intentional and unpermitted contact. Offensive harm included b/c of mental injuries). ▪ To have a claim of battery‚ there must be a claim of fault‚ negligence‚ or wrongdoing on the part of
Premium Tort law Tort
Ethics of Medical Negligence…………………………………………………………………………………….03 Tort of Clinical Negligence………………………………………………………………………………………..05 Practice of Defensive Medicine…………………………………………………………………………………06 Principle of Res Ipsa Loquito…………………………………………………………………………………….07 Duty of Care……………………………………………………………………………………………………………08 Duty on part of Hospital and Doctor to obtain prior consent of patient..…………………08 NHS Redress Act……………………………………………………………………………………………………..09 Medical Negligence and CPA in India………………………………………………………………………
Premium Medicine Physician Tort
Torts Outline Exam Analysis Chart out all of the torts that are in the fact pattern. Who are the plaintiffs and defendants? Make the prima facie case. Raise the defenses to the prima facie case. General considerations‚ if any. Vicarious liability Joint tortfeasors Intentional Torts – Attacking the fact pattern Always treat the plaintiff as an average person (no super sensitivities except when D is aware of them.) Everyone is liable for an intentional tort! 1 Torts Outline 1) Introduction
Premium Tort law Tort
in the Bugusa‚ Inc.‚ link located on the student website to answer the following questions. Scenario: WIRETIME‚ Inc.‚ Advertisement Has WIRETIME‚ Inc.‚ committed any torts? If so‚ explain. WIRETIME‚ Inc. places an ad in a magazine stating that BUGusa devices were low quality and did not work for more than a month. The tort is defamation. Defamation occurs when one party makes a false statement about another. A third party heard or read the statement must be about a particular party‚ and damages
Premium Tort Tort law
Negligence is essentially concerned with compensating people who have suffered damage as a result of the carelessness of others .One of the main ways in which access to compensation is restricted is through the doctrine of the duty of care.Essentially‚this is a legal concept which dictates the circumstances in which one party will be liable to another in negligence.Breach of a duty of care essentially means that the defendant has fallen below the standard of behavior expected in someone undertaking
Premium Tort Reasonable person Standard of care
Medical Profession and Negligence: Analysis Submitted by Ananya Pratap Singh Division-C Roll No.- 36 Class- 2011-2016 of Symbiosis Law School‚ NOIDA Symbiosis International University‚ PUNE In February‚ 2012 Under the guidance of Dr. Chandrashekhar J. Rawandale Director Symbiosis Law School‚ Noida C E R T I F I C A T E The project entitled “Consumer‚ Medical Profession and Negligence: Analysis“ submitted to the Symbiosis Law School‚ NOIDA for Law of Torts‚ MV Accident and Consumer
Premium Medicine Negligence Duty of care
served scolding hot or not‚ no breach of warranty‚ and no negligence of emotional damage. 4. According to the case‚ why was this not a case of negligent infliction of emotional distress‚ and what tort did the court approve? (5 points) The court did approve punitive damages but Burger King had nothing to do with the child being burnt by the coffee. 5. According to the case‚ why didn’t the court approve summary judgment for product liability claims? (5 points) Because it wasn’t stated on the cup‚ Hot
Premium Negligence Product liability Tort