HOME
*



picture info

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, ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Deepwater Horizon Offshore Drilling Unit On Fire 2010
Deepwater may refer to ocean water in the abyssal zone, hadal zone, or other deep ocean zones. Deepwater may also refer to: Entertainment * Deep Water (Highsmith novel), a 1957 a psychological thriller novel by Patricia Highsmith * ''Deepwater'' (film), a 2005 neo-noir film based on the novel * ''Deepwater trilogy'', a series of novels by Ken Catran * ''Deepwater'', a novel by Matthew F. Jones published in 1999 * ''Deep Water'' (film), a 2022 psychological thriller film Places Australia * Deepwater, New South Wales, a village * Deepwater, Queensland, a locality in the Gladstone Region * Deepwater, South Australia * Deepwater National Park, a coastal national park in Queensland * Deepwater River, a river in New South Wales United States * Deepwater, Missouri, a city in Henry County, Missouri *Deepwater Township, Bates County, Missouri *Deepwater, New Jersey, a community in Pennsville, New Jersey *Deepwater Shoals Light, a lighthouse in Virginia *Deepwater Terminal Railro ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  




Remoteness (law)
In English law, remoteness between a cause of action and the loss or damage sustained as a result is addressed through a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limit the amount of compensatory damages available for a wrong. In negligence, the test of causation not only requires that the defendant was the cause in fact, but also requires that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too remote. As with the policy issues in establishing that there was a duty of care and that that duty was breached, remoteness is designed as a further limit on a cause of action to ensure that the liability to pay damages placed on the defendant is done fairly. Tort Directness The traditional approach was that once a breach in the duty of care had been established, a defendant was liable for all the consequent damage no matter how unusual or unpredictable that damage might be. In ''Re Polemis'' while docked, workers employed to unload the ship negligently dropped a plank into ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Barnett V Kensington & Chelsea NHS Trust
''Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee'' 9682 WLR 422 is an English tort law case that applies the "but for" test of causation. Facts After their night shift as night-watchmen, at about 8am on 1 January 1966, three people went to the emergency department of the hospital run by the Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee. (They had actually already visited this hospital at about 4am because an intruder had struck one of them in the head with an iron bar.) They spoke to a nurse and told her that they had been vomiting since drinking tea at about 5am. The casualty officer, Dr. Banerjee, did not see them. He advised the nurse, over the phone, that they should go home and call their own doctors. One of them, Mr. Barnett, died about five hours later from arsenic poisoning. Mrs. Barnett sued the hospital for negligence. Judgment The judge held that the hospital was not liable. Even if they were to have admitted Mr. Barnett, there would have been little ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Asbestos
Asbestos () is a naturally occurring fibrous silicate mineral. There are six types, all of which are composed of long and thin fibrous crystals, each fibre being composed of many microscopic "fibrils" that can be released into the atmosphere by abrasion and other processes. Inhalation of asbestos fibres can lead to various dangerous lung conditions, including mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer, so it is now notorious as a serious health and safety hazard. Archaeological studies have found evidence of asbestos being used as far back as the Stone Age to strengthen ceramic pots, but large-scale mining began at the end of the 19th century when manufacturers and builders began using asbestos for its desirable physical properties. Asbestos is an excellent electrical insulator and is highly fire-resistant, so for much of the 20th century it was very commonly used across the world as a building material, until its adverse effects on human health were more widely acknowledg ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Montgomery V Lanarkshire Health Board
''Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board'' 015UKSC 11is a Scottish delict, medical negligence and English tort law case on doctors and pharmacists that outlines the rule on the disclosure of risks to satisfy the criteria of an informed consent. The Supreme Court departed and overruled the earlier House of Lords case in ''Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital'', in reconsidering the duty of care of a doctor towards a patient on medical treatment. The case changed the ''Bolam test'' to a greater test in medical negligence by introducing the general duty to attempt the disclosure of risks.9571 WLR 582 Facts The claimant was a woman of small stature and a diabetic under the care of a doctor during her pregnancy and labour. The doctor did not inform her of the 9-10% risk of shoulder dystocia, where the baby's shoulders are unable to pass through the pelvis among diabetic women as she viewed the problem being very slight and a caesarean section was not in the claim ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Wells V Cooper
''Wells v. Cooper'' (1958) 2 All ER 527 is an England and Wales Court of Appeal judgment dealing with the issue of standard of care in English tort law. The question in the case was what standard of care could be expected of a person who carries out repairs in his own house negligently, so that his visitors get injured as a result. Facts The defendant, Mr Cooper fixed a new handle to his back door. The plaintiff, Mr Wells, a visiting tradesman was leaving Cooper's house by the back door. When he pulled the door strongly in order to shut it, the handle came off and Wells fell, injuring himself. Expert evidence was given that Cooper should have used longer screws when attaching the handle. Judgment The Court of Appeal held that the degree of care and skill required of a householder undertaking his own repairs was to be measured not by reference to his own degree of personal competence but by reference to the degree of care and skill which a reasonably skilled amateur carpenter mig ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  




Mullin V Richards
''Mullin v Richards'' 9981 All ER 920 is a judgment of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, dealing with liability of children under English law of negligence. The question in the case was what standard of behaviour could be expected of a child. Facts The plaintiff and the defendant, two female friends of fifteen years old, were fencing with plastic rulers in their classroom. One of the rulers shattered and a piece of plastic flew into the plaintiff girl's eye, partially depriving her of sight. Judgment The Court of Appeal found that the standard to be expected of a 15-year-old child was not the standard of a reasonable person, but that of a reasonable and "ordinarily prudent" 15-year-old. It was held that an ordinary prudent 15-year old could not have foreseen any injury when playing with rulers and the defendant was therefore found not liable in negligence. See also *Standard of care in English law *Breach of duty in English law *'' Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks'' *'' Bol ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Bolam V Friern Hospital Management Committee
''Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee'' 9571 WLR 582 is an English tort law case that lays down the typical rule for assessing the appropriate standard of reasonable care in negligence cases involving skilled professionals such as doctors. This rule is known as the Bolam test, and states that if a doctor reaches the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion, they are not negligent. ''Bolam'' was rejected in the 2015 Supreme Court decision of ''Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board'' in matters of informed consent. Facts Mr Bolam was a voluntary patient at Friern Hospital, a mental health institution run by the Friern Hospital Management Committee. He agreed to undergo electro-convulsive therapy. He was not given any muscle relaxant, and his body was not restrained during the procedure. He flailed about violently before the procedure was stopped, and he suffered some serious injuries, including fractures of the acetabula. He sued the committee for compensation. He ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


Blyth V Company Proprietors Of The Birmingham Water Works
''Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company'' (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 concerns reasonableness in the law of negligence. It is famous for its classic statement of what negligence is and the standard of care to be met. Facts The defendants, Birmingham Waterworks Company, were the water works for Birmingham. They had been incorporated by statute for the purpose of supplying Birmingham with water. The statute provided that: the company should, upon the laying down of any main-pipe or other pipe in any street, fix, at the time of laying down such pipe, a proper and sufficient fire-plug in each such street, and should deliver the key or keys of such fire-plug to the persons having the care of the engine-house in or near to the said street, and cause another key to be hung up in the watch-house in or near to the said street. By sect. 87, pipes were to be eighteen inches beneath the surface of the soil. By the 89th section, the mains were at all times to be kept charged with water. The defendan ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Floodgates Principle
The floodgates principle, or the floodgates argument, is a legal principle which is sometimes applied by judges to restrict or limit the right to make claims for damages because of a concern that permitting a claimant to recover in such situations might open the metaphorical "floodgates" to large numbers of claims and lawsuits. The principle is most frequently cited in common law jurisdictions, and in English tort law in particular. Most of the situations in which the courts have employed the floodgates argument have revolved around liability in tort, and in particular in relation to the liability for nervous shock or for pure economic loss. The rationale in which the floodgates principle has been applied may vary. In some cases it is expressed to be a constraint upon when a defendant will owe a duty of care, in others it is expressed to be a limitation upon the remoteness of damage for which a defendant should be held responsible for. In other cases it is simply stated as a p ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]  


picture info

Opacity (optics)
Opacity is the measure of impenetrability to electromagnetic or other kinds of radiation, especially visible light. In radiative transfer, it describes the absorption and scattering of radiation in a medium, such as a plasma, dielectric, shielding material, glass, etc. An opaque object is neither transparent (allowing all light to pass through) nor translucent (allowing some light to pass through). When light strikes an interface between two substances, in general some may be reflected, some absorbed, some scattered, and the rest transmitted (also see refraction). Reflection can be diffuse, for example light reflecting off a white wall, or specular, for example light reflecting off a mirror. An opaque substance transmits no light, and therefore reflects, scatters, or absorbs all of it. Both mirrors and carbon black are opaque. Opacity depends on the frequency of the light being considered. For instance, some kinds of glass, while transparent in the visual range, are lar ...
[...More Info...]      
[...Related Items...]     OR:     [Wikipedia]   [Google]   [Baidu]