|
Doughty V Turner Manufacturing
''Doughty v Turner Manufacturing'' is a 1964 English law, English case on the law of English law of negligence, negligence. The case is notable for failing to apply the concept of "foreseeable class of harm" established in ''Hughes v Lord Advocate'', thereby denying the award of damages to a factory worker injured in an accident at work. Facts A factory worker who was lowering an lid with an asbestos-cement lining onto a cauldron of hot acidic liquid accidentally knocked the lid into the liquid. Shortly afterwards a "violent eruption" occurred, causing serious burns to the claimant who was standing some distance away. Unknown to anyone, the asbestos-cement lining was saturated with moisture from atmospheric water-vapour, and the accident occurred when water in the lid turned to steam and "erupted". Held Applying the dictum in ''Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, The Wagon Mound No. 1'', the court denied the claimant a remedy, saying the injury was "t ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Law
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures. Principal elements of English law Although the common law has, historically, been the foundation and prime source of English law, the most authoritative law is statutory legislation, which comprises Acts of Parliament, regulations and by-laws. In the absence of any statutory law, the common law with its principle of '' stare decisis'' forms the residual source of law, based on judicial decisions, custom, and usage. Common law is made by sitting judges who apply both statutory law and established principles which are derived from the reasoning from earlier decisions. Equity is the other historic source of judge-made law. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament. Not being a civil law system, it has no comprehensive codification. However, most of its criminal law has been codified from its common la ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Law Of Negligence
In English tort law, there can be no liability in negligence unless the claimant establishes both that they were owed a duty of care by the defendant, and that there has been a breach of that duty. The defendant is in breach of duty towards the claimant if their conduct fell short of the standard expected under the circumstances. General standard of care is as follows For a defendant to be deemed negligent, he must have breached his duty of care towards the plaintiff. In order to be deemed as breaching the duty of care, his actions must be proven to fall below the standard of care likely to be taken by the reasonable man. Establishing a breach of duty and ascertaining the standard of care is complex and before establishing that the duty of care has been breached the plaintiff must first prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care. The standard of care is defined as the measures that a reasonable person (in the circumstances of the defendant) take to reduce the risk of harm. ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Hughes V Lord Advocate
is an important Scottish delict case decided by the House of Lords on causation. The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise " allurement" ''per se''). The case's main significance is that, after the shift within the common law of negligence from strict liability to a reasonable standard of care, this case advocated a middle way, namely: *Even if the loss or harm is not itself foreseeable, liability may arise provided the actual loss falls with a "foreseeable class of harm". This idea was neither developed nor expanded upon, and only one year later the claimant in ''Doughty v Turner Manufacturing'' obtained no remedy ''via'' this "middle way". However, the case was followed in subsequent cases on occupiers' liability. Facts One evening in November 1958 two boys aged 8 and 10 were walking down Russell Road, Edinburgh where some Post Office workers were repairing cables under the street. The men had opened a ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd V Morts Dock And Engineering Co Ltd
''Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd'',. commonly known as ''Wagon Mound (No. 1)'', is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. ''The Wagon Mound (No 1)'' should not be confused with the successor case of the ''Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship'' or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the standard of the reasonable man in breach of the duty of care.. Facts Overseas Tankship had a ship, the ''Wagon Mound'', docked in Sydney Harbour in October 1951. The crew had carelessly allowed furnace oil (also referred to as Bunker oil) to leak from their ship. The oil drifted under a wharf thickly coating the water and the shore where ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Strict Liability
In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. Under the strict liability law, if the defendant possesses anything that is inherently dangerous, as specified under the "ultrahazardous" definition, the defendant is then strictly liable for any damages caused by such possession, no matter how careful the defendant is safeguarding them. In the field of torts, prominent examples of strict liability may include product liability, abnormally dangerous activities (e.g., blasting), intrusion onto another's land by livestock, and ownership of wild animals. Other than activities specified above (like ownership of wild animals, etc), US courts have historically considered the following activities as "ultrahazardous": # storing flammable liquids in quantity in an urban area # pile driving # b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Re Polemis
''In Re'' ''Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd'' (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are. The case is an example of strict liability, a concept which has generally fallen out of favour with the common law courts. The case may now be considered "bad law", having been superseded by the landmark decisions of ''Donoghue v Stevenson'' and '' The Wagon Mound (No 1)''. Facts The defendant stevedore's employees were loading cargo into a ship. An employee negligently caused a plank to fall into the ship's hold. The plank caused a spark, which ignited some petrol vapour in the hold, causing an explosion that resulted in the ship becoming a total loss. The matter was taken to arbitration. Judgment The arbitrator found that the defendant's negligence caused the plank to fal ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, ''respondeat superior'', the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee. Employers' liability Employers are vicariously liable, under the ''respondeat superior'' doctrine, for negligent acts or omission ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Tort Law
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations. In English law, torts like other civil cases are generally tried in front a judge without a jury. History Following Roman law, the English system has long been based on a closed system of nominate torts, such as trespass, battery and conversion. This is in contrast to continental legal systems, which have since adopted more open systems of tortious liability. There are various categories of tort, which lead back to the system of separate causes of action. The tort of negligence is however increasing in importance over other types of tort, prov ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Negligence Per Se
Negligence ''per se'' is a doctrine in US law whereby an act is considered negligent because it violates a statute (or regulation). The doctrine is effectively a form of strict liability. Negligence ''per se'' means greater liability than contributory negligence. Elements In order to prove negligence ''per se'', the plaintiff usually must show that: # the defendant violated the statute, # the act caused the kind of harm the statute was designed to prevent, and # the plaintiff was a member of the statute's protected class. In some jurisdictions, negligence ''per se'' creates merely a rebuttable presumption of negligence. A typical example is one in which a contractor violates a building code when constructing a house. The house then collapses, injuring somebody. The violation of the building code establishes negligence ''per se'' and the contractor will be found liable, so long as the contractor's breach of the code was the cause (proximate cause and actual cause) of the injur ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Palsgraf V
''Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.'', 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff. The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United States Supreme Court justice. The plaintiff, Helen Palsgraf, was waiting at a Long Island Rail Road station in August 1924 while taking her daughters to the beach. Two men attempted to board the train before hers; one (aided by railroad employees) dropped a package that exploded, causing a large coin-operated scale on the platform to hit her. After the incident, she began to stammer, and subsequently sued the railroad, arguing that its employees had been negligent while assisting the man, and that she had been harmed by the neglect. In May 1927 she obtained a jury verdict of $6,000, ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
1964 In Case Law
Events January * January 1 – The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is dissolved. * January 5 - In the first meeting between leaders of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches since the fifteenth century, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople meet in Jerusalem. * January 6 – A British firm, the Leyland Motors, Leyland Motor Corp., announces the sale of 450 buses to the Cuban government, challenging the United States blockade of Cuba. * January 9 – ''Martyrs' Day (Panama), Martyrs' Day'': Armed clashes between United States troops and Panamanian civilians in the Panama Canal Zone precipitate a major international crisis, resulting in the deaths of 21 Panamanians and 4 U.S. soldiers. * January 11 – United States Surgeon General Luther Terry reports that smoking may be hazardous to one's health (the first such statement from the U.S. government). * January 12 ** Zanzibar Revolution: The predominantly Arab government of Zanzibar is overthrown b ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
English Tort Case Law
English usually refers to: * English language * English people English may also refer to: Peoples, culture, and language * ''English'', an adjective for something of, from, or related to England ** English national identity, an identity and common culture ** English language in England, a variant of the English language spoken in England * English languages (other) * English studies, the study of English language and literature * ''English'', an Amish term for non-Amish, regardless of ethnicity Individuals * English (surname), a list of notable people with the surname ''English'' * People with the given name ** English McConnell (1882–1928), Irish footballer ** English Fisher (1928–2011), American boxing coach ** English Gardner (b. 1992), American track and field sprinter Places United States * English, Indiana, a town * English, Kentucky, an unincorporated community * English, Brazoria County, Texas, an unincorporated community * Engli ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
