|
Cattle Trespass
Cattle trespass was an ancient common law tort whereby the keeper of livestock was held strictly liable for any damage caused by the straying livestock. Under English law the tort was abolished by section 1(1)(c) of the Animals Act 1971, but the tort continues to subsist in other common law jurisdictions, either in its original form as a common law tort, or as modified by statute. Liability for cattle trespass is similar to, but conceptually distinct from, the old common law ''scienter'' action in relation to strict liability for animals which are known to be vicious. In many of the reported cases, claims for cattle trespass and ''scienter'' are pleaded in the alternative. History and development The first recorded writ for cattle trespass was issued during the reign of King John (1199-1216). However the tort initially related to the keeping of animals; it was not until 1353 it was expanded to cover liability caused by their escape. Since its inception, cattle trespass a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified," ''Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting). By the early 20th century, legal professionals had come to reject any idea of a higher or natural law, or a law above the law. The law arises through the act of a sovereign, whether that sovereign speaks through a legislature, executive, or judicial officer. The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. '' Stare decisis'', the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Baron Coleridge
Baron Coleridge, of Ottery St Mary in the County of Devon, is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1874 for the prominent lawyer, judge and Liberal politician Sir John Coleridge. He served as Lord Chief Justice of England from 1880 to 1894. His son, the second Baron, represented Attercliffe in the House of Commons and served as a Judge of the High Court of Justice. the title is held by the latter's great-grandson, the fifth Baron, who succeeded in 1984. The first Baron was the son of Sir John Taylor Coleridge and the great-nephew of the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge. The ancestral home of the Coleridge family is The Chanter's House in Ottery St Mary. In October 2006 the increasing costs of maintaining the property caused the family trust to put the property up for sale and auction the contents. Barons Coleridge (1874 onwards) * John Duke Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge (1821–1894) * Bernard John Seymour Coleridge, 2nd Baron Coleridge (1851–192 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Burnie Port Authority V General Jones Pty Ltd
''Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd''. is a tort law case from the High Court of Australia, which decided it would abolish the rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher'', and the '' ignis suus'' principle, incorporating them generally into the tort of negligence. Background Facts A fire, caused by an independent contractor's employee welding negligently, began on the defendant's premises and spread to a nearby property. The property was burnt causing A$2.5M of damages. The plaintiff sued under ''ignis suus'', nuisance, negligence and the rule in ''Rylands v Fletcher'' (a rule of strict liability),. interpreted in part through the duty of occupier to invitee. The defendant was Burnie Port Authority (Burnie), located in Burnie, Tasmania, who provided storage facilities, and the plaintiff was General Jones, who stored a large quantity of frozen vegetables. General Jones suffered damage when the vegetables were ruined by fire which destroyed Burnie property. Prior proceedings * ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
High Court Of Australia
The High Court of Australia is Australia's apex court. It exercises Original jurisdiction, original and appellate jurisdiction on matters specified within Constitution of Australia, Australia's Constitution. The High Court was established following passage of the ''Judiciary Act 1903''. It derives its authority from Chapter III of the Australian Constitution, which vests it responsibility for the judiciary, judicial power of the Commonwealth. Important legal instruments pertaining to the High Court include the ''Judiciary Act 1903'' and the ''High Court of Australia Act 1979''.. Its bench is composed of seven justices, including a Chief Justice of Australia, Chief Justice, currently Susan Kiefel. Justices of the High Court are appointed by the Governor-General of Australia, Governor-General on the Advice (constitutional law), advice of the Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister and are appointed permanently until their mandatory retirement at age 70, unless they retire ea ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Transco Plc V Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
is an important English tort law case, concerning the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher''. Facts Transco plc (British Gas come commercial) had sued the council for repairs of £93,681.55 underneath one of its pipes in Brinnington. The ground beneath the gas pipe had washed away when the council’s water pipe leaked. Judgment The Lords held that because the quantities of water from an ordinary pipe is not dangerous or unnatural in the course of things, the council was not liable. Lord Hoffmann, however, remarked on the irony that had the pipe belonged to a ‘water undertaker’ s.209 Water Industry Act 1991 creates strict liability unless (with further irony) the loss is to a Gas Act 1986 company. Their Lordships protected the rule in ''Rylands v. Fletcher'' but within strict confines. The escape must be of something dangerous, out of the ordinary, which did not include a burst waterpipe on council property. Unlike the Australian High Court, whose abolition of the doctrine in ''Bu ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Judicial Functions Of The House Of Lords
Whilst the House of Lords of the United Kingdom is the upper chamber of Parliament and has government ministers, it for many centuries had a judicial function. It functioned as a court of first instance for the trials of peers, for impeachments, and as a court of last resort in the United Kingdom and prior, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of England. Appeals were technically not to the House of Lords, but rather to the King-in-Parliament. In 1876, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act devolved the appellate functions of the House to an Appellate Committee, composed of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (informally referred to as Law Lords). They were then appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the same manner as other judges. During the 20th and early 21st century, the judicial functions were gradually removed. Its final trial of a peer was in 1935, and in 1948, the use of special courts for such trials was abolished. The procedure of impeachment became seen as obsolete. In 2009, t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Letang V Cooper
is an English Court of Appeal judgment, by which it was decided that negligently caused personal injury cannot be recovered under the trespass to the person, but the tort of negligence must be tried instead. Facts Mr Cooper (the defendant) negligently ran over Mrs Letang (the plaintiff) in his Jaguar motor car while she was sunbathing on a piece of grass where cars were parked. The plaintiff filed a claim in trespass to the person, because the claim in negligence was time-barred. Trespass to the person is a tort involving wrongful direct interference with another person and traditionally included both intentional and negligent acts. Judgment The Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ and Danckwerts LJ, held unanimously that since Mr Cooper's actions were negligent rather than intentional, the statute of limitations barring claims actions for damage caused by negligence applied, meaning that Mrs. Letang could not recover as she had filed suit too la ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Donoghue V Stevenson
was a Lists of landmark court decisions, landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords. It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in Common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care. Also known as the "Paisley Snail" or "Snail in the Bottle" case, the case involved Mrs May Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. Unknown to her or anybody else, a decomposed snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and subsequently sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers. Prior to ''Donoghue v Stevenson'', liability for personal injury i ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Rylands V Fletcher
''Rylands v Fletcher'' (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.Bohlen (1911) 300 Rylands employs contractors to build a reservoir. As a result of negligent work done, the reservoir burst and flooded a neighbouring mine, run by Fletcher, causing £937 worth of damage (). Fletcher brought a claim under negligence against Rylands. At the court of first instance, the majority ruled in favour of Rylands. Bramwell B, dissenting, argued that the claimant had the right to enjoy his land free of interference from water, and that Rylands was guilty of trespass and the commissioning of a nuisance. Bramwell's argument was affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber and the House of Lords, leading to the development of the "Rule in ''Rylan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
CH Cow 2 Cropped
CH, Ch, cH, or ch may refer to: Arts and entertainment * Television channel (sometimes abbreviated as "ch." for television and cable stations) * ''Chaos;Head'', a video game * ''Clone Hero'', a clone game version of popular rhythm game series ''Guitar Hero''. * CollegeHumor, a comedy website * E!, a defunct Canadian television system that went by the name CH from 2001 to 2007 Businesses * Bemidji Airlines (IATA code CH) * Carolina Herrera, a fashion designer based in New York * Columbia Helicopters, an aircraft manufacturing and operator company based in Aurora, Oregon, United States In language * Ch (digraph), considered a single letter in several Latin-alphabet languages * Chamorro language: ISO 639 alpha-2 language code (ch) Science and technology Chemistry * The methylidyne radical (a carbyne); CH• (or •CH), CH3• (or ⫶CH) * The methylidyne group ≡CH * The methine group (methanylylidene, methylylidene) =CH− Mathematics and computing * Chomsky hierarchy, in c ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negligence
Negligence (Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as ''negligence'' involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of ''carelessness'' possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for damages to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss. The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Elements of negligence claims Some things must be established by anyone who wants to sue in ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tort
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract. While tort law in civil law jurisdictions largely derives from Roman law, common law jurisdictions derive their tort law from cus ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.png "Click for more on -> Common Law")
