Facebook.com/Thaya PK (Last minute Exam Revision) Tort: Negligence: MEDICAL Prima facie duty owed by the Hospital/Doctor to patient Cassidy v Ministry of Health (Vicariously liable) BREACH via Standard of Care Wilsher v Essex Experience irrelevant as a doctor; trainee or not‚ same standard “Bolam Test” Bolam v Friern Management Hospital Committee Expert opinion/body of professional opinion‚ vice-versa test Level of skill and competency Bolitho v City of hackney Health Authority Applied Bolam
Premium Tort law Tort
The Law of Torts in New Zealand (5th ed‚ Brookers‚ Wellington‚ 2009)‚ Professor Todd suggested that physical injuries “should be understood to mean any condition involving harm to the human body...that is more than merely trifling or fleeting”. The claimant suffered a physical injury which involved the nicking of a finger. There is no dispute that there was
Free Injury Physical trauma Tort
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
Who is the reasonable man? Factors considered whether he adopted necessary care? Tort of negligence = failure by Def to conform with standard of behaviour. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable person guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent & reasonable person would not do. While a loss from an accident usually lies where it falls a defendant cannot plead accident if‚ treated
Premium Tort Duty of care Tort law
leniently by limiting their liability in some cases. On one hand‚ the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty to protect the interests of and compensate those who have suffered a loss and injury and this is also one of the major aims of tort law. In Donoghue v. Stevenson‚ the courts judged the manufacturer of the ginger beer‚ David Stevenson of Paisley owned a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue even though there was no contract between them. In Lord Aitkin’s “neighbour” principle‚ liability
Premium Tort Plaintiff Duty of care
PRACTICE QUESTION FOR TORTS John worked as a car/truck mechanic for a small business in Darlinghurst Sydney. He was a newly trained mechanic and had just commenced work at a new job last week. The day he started work he was given the task of repairing a truck engine. This required John to disassemble the engine with specialised tools. Mechanics who worked on these large engines were normally given protective head gear to prevent any piece of engine striking them in the face should a piece
Premium Causality Pleading Internal combustion engine
Supreme Court of South Dakota‚ 2006 SD 98‚ 724 N.W>2d334 (2006) Facts Midnight Star Enterprises‚ L.P.(MSEL) is a limited partnership‚ which operates a gaming‚ on-sale liquor and restaurant business in Deadwood‚ South Dakota. The owners of Midnight Star are: 1- Midnight Star Enterprises‚ Ltd. With 22%) – it is also the general partner. 2- Kevin Costner with 71.5% ownership. However‚ Costner owns Midnight Star‚ so he owns 93.5%. Francis and Carla Caneva‚ own 3.25%‚ each. Caneva managed the
Premium Partnership Types of business entity Corporation
MEMORANDUM ISSUE I. Can Doe reveal that Mr. King intends on lying in the upcoming litigation if asked if he had any alcohol prior to the accident? II. After consulting with King and he still intends on lying on the stand‚ can Doe withdraw from the case? III. Can Doe make a false statement of material fact or law to a court and fail to disclose a material fact necessary to avoid assisting King in a criminal or fraudulent act and offer false evidence? RULE The first relevant
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Court Bill Clinton
Exclusion of responsibility terms It is possible to have a term in the contract which excludes one of the parties from responsibility for something that may go wrong in the performance of the contract or limits that responsibility. It is called an exclusion clause or an exemption clause. For example‚ an exclusion from liability for damage done to the lawn by a builder’s backhoe might be included in a contract between the builder and a home owner who is having an extension built to their home. Express
Premium Contract Law Parol evidence rule
Intentional Tort Paper Unit 3 Holly Cord Kaplan University PA165-01 Intentional Torts Black’s Law Dictionary defines assault as “the threat or use of force on another that causes that person to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.” This means that the tortfeasor does not have to make physical contact with the victim. The victim only needs to be placed under a reasonable amount of fear that the physical contact will occur. In fact if physical contact does
Premium Management Sociology Contract