Interoffice Memorandum Privileged Attorney Work Product To: Professor From: Date: November 3‚ 2009 Re: Alicia Carmody’s claim against her Neighbor‚ Mr. John Ellis‚ for a private nuisance claim. QUESTION PRESENTED Under Vermont Common Law does Mr. John Ellis’ recently created chicken coop in a residential neighborhood constitutes a private nuisance when Mr. Ellis’ rooster and the hens generate odors and noises that could be considered unreasonable and substantial interferences
Premium Tort Odor Chicken
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
Questions: 1. Define Negligence or Culpa. 2. What are the kinds of Negligence? 3. What are the successive rights of the creditors to satisfy the claims of his debtors? Answers to Questions: NEGLIGENCE Negligence‚ also known as Culpa‚ is the failure to observe for the protection of the interests of another person‚ that degree of care‚ precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand‚ whereby such other person suffers injury. Negligence can also be defined as: The omission
Premium Contract Criminal law Negligence
GLENDALE CHEMICAL PRODUCTS PTY LTD v ACCC (1999) ATPR 41-672 Plaintiff: Michael Barnes Defendant/Appellant: Glendale Chemical Products Pty Ltd –Supplier of Caustic Soda which is called “DRANO” Respondent: Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Prepared By: GLENDA B. GAERLAN Presented To: PETER MCGUINNES BUSINESS LAW 1st Semester 2010 Background Facts: Michael Barnes bought a 500g of caustic soda called “DRANO” at a local store
Premium Meaning of life Law Sodium
2010 Business Law Revision Booklet The Business Law final exam is 3 hours with 10 minutes of reading time. HOW TO ANSWER CASE STUDY QUESTIONS When answering this question student’s need to follow the format of: i) state the issue ii) state the law-this includes relevant legislation and cases iii) apply the law to the facts iv) state the conclusion Key words used in questions: Explain – students need to provide
Premium Contract Tort Common law
Suman Siva Prof. Jeong Chun Phuoc 012014111647 Assignment 2 – Weekly Case Law Critique WEEK 2 CASE LAW ON DONOGHUE V STEVENSON (1932) Summary On August 26th 1928‚ Donoghue (plaintiff) and a friend were at a case in Glasgow‚ Scotland. Her friend ordered / purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Donoghue. The bottle was in an opaque bottle (dark glass material) as Donoghue was not aware of the contents. After‚ Donoghue drank some and her friend lifted the bottle to pour the remainder of the ginger
Premium Law Duty of care Tort
DEFENITION: STRICT LIABILITY RYLANDS V FLETCHER CASE i. FACTS ii. DIAGRAMATICAL REPRESENTATION iii. JUDGEMENT iv. EFFECTS OF THE CASE v. EFFECTS OF THE CASE IN INDIA vi. CONCLUSION vii. ESSENTIALS EXCEPTIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY STRICT LIABILITY • A person may be liable for some harm even though he is not negligent in causing the same or does not intentionally cause it or is careful or has taken steps to prevent the same. • e.g.‚ The defendant is liable to the neighbor
Premium Tort Legal terms Law
difficult 6) Under the U.S. legal system‚ subject to some exceptions‚ costs of litigation regarding both the plaintiff and defendant C. are paid for by each side with the plaintiff and defendant paying for their own legal costs 7) Generally‚ torts law is governed by B. state common law 8) Assumption of risk is a defense to B. negligence 9) The three stripes on Adidas clothing represents a A. trademark 10) The color or shape of an item‚ if distinctive‚ is a B. trade dress
Premium Common law Contract Tort
The Application of Precedent • The process: relevant circumstances in the present case; rule to be applied to the case must be discovered by examining previous similar cases (precedent); rule applied to the circumstances of present case. Example 1 • Considine v Shannon regional Fisheries Board [1994] Costello J: ‘principle of precedent is easy to state‚ but is difficult to apply in practice’ • The issue: after a not guilty verdict (acquittal) in the District Court‚ could an appeal could
Premium Law Tort Jury
EXISTENCE OF A DUTY Before 1932 there was no generalised duty of care in negligence. The tort did exist and was applied in particular situations where the courts had decided that a duty should be owed‚ eg‚ road accidents‚ bailments or dangerous goods. In 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
Premium Tort Duty of care Negligence