In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] it was held that all owe a ? craft of care? to ?their neighbour?. However, the ?guidelines? which can be taken from Caparo v Dickman 1990 are that at that place are three separate pre-requisites to the pain in the ass of a tariff of care. Firstly, it must be ?foreseeable? that if genius party acts carelessly. the other party will suffer scathe or damage; secondly, there must be a sufficient degree of ?proximity? between the two parties, that is a sufficient ?closeness? between them; and thirdly, the imposition of a duty of care must be ?fair, just and reasonable?. at that place is no doubt as to whether burden committed a negligent act. I will be discussing the liability of bear down for the harm suffered by Jane, Sally and Ranjit.
In advising the potential parties as to whether crest is liable for the harm suffered we must consider which parties arrive at been wronged and then establish if they are owed a duty of care, whether there was a breach of that duty and whether the breach caused the damage. The accidents themselves were caused by summit; he clearly owed a duty of care as a motorist and was negligent. Applying the ?but for test?, but for the actions of Bill Ranjit would not sustain sustained damage to his shop windowpane and products therefore should be held liable of regaining of £2000.
Foreseeability means whether a hypothetical reasonable person would have foreseen damage in the circumstances. Bill would have forseen that if his car was to go into a shop window that damages would have occurred. Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] Taking Bill?s age into consideration, Children cannot plead infancy as a defence to a tort. However, children and young people will usually be judge by the objective standard of the unremarkably prudent...
If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment