Case Analysis : Sue Stockfans Pty Ltd

The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 defines negligence as a failure on the part of the defendant which results in the harm of the plaintiff which could have been prevented by taking reasonable care. The breach of duty must be foreseeable, Sullivan v Moody. The risk must be not insignificant, and a reasonable person under similar circumstances would have taken precaution against the harm. In this case

At the first stage of the Anns test, two questions arise: “The first question is whether the circumstances disclose reasonably foreseeable harm and proximity sufficient to establish prima facie duty of care. The first inquiry at this stage is whether the case falls within or is analogous to a category of cases in which a duty of care has previously been recognized. The next question is whether this is situation in which a new duty of care should be recognized. At the second stage of the Anns test, the question still remains whether there are residual policy consideration outside the relationship of the parties that may negative the imposition of a duty of care. It is useful to expressly ask, before imposing a new duty of care, whether despite foreseeability and proximity of relationship, there are other policy reasons why the duty should not be imposed. This part of test only arises in cases where the duty of care asserted does not fall within a recognized category. The trial judge concluded that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in negligence and that the plaintiffs should be permitted to bring a class action”.

To sum up, based on the law of negligence, the issues and precedents, Rebecca could win this case by legal process. Because the defendant ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant owns a duty of care to Rebecca, the restaurant has breached that duty of care;

To decide if there is the foreseeability of harm the Court will analyse what another reasonable person would do in the Silverline’s position. Silverline is a professional society and they are expected to meet standards of safety that any other of that professional person

Landlords and business owners owe a duty to their tenants and patrons for foreseeable criminal acts of third parties that are committed on The approach to premises liability is based on the relationship between the parties at the time of injury. (ROWE) As the legal status of the visitor improves, the possessor of the land owes more of an obligation of protection. (ROWE). In Rowe, where an officer was injured while checking a vacant building, the court ruled that the landowners had a duty even though the officer was aware of the condition. The court reasoned in Rowe that the officer had the status of an licensee and the landowner owed a duty to warn of any dangerous conditions that the landowner new of or had reason to know and of which the officer

‘“Occupier of the premises (defendant) owes the same duty of care, the common duty of care to all visitors”

INTRODUCTION In a scene from the 2008 film, The Reader , a female prison guard that had served during the Nazi occupation, Hanna Schmitz, is tried as a war criminal in a court set up by the victors of the war. One of the war crimes she is being charged with is for letting 300 female Jewish prisoners perish in a church that had caught on fire. Despite Schmitz’s defence that it was her duty to guard the prisoners and unlocking the church doors would have resulted in definite chaos, her pleas fell on deaf ears and she was successfully convicted. By isolating that particular event and eliminating the political duress that Schmitz was under at that time, it is important to understand that she was not the one who started the fire and was criticised and convicted solely on her inaction to unlock the church doors and let the prisoners out as she had the keys.

The landowner's liability would be determined by several factors: 1. Did the landowner fulfill its duty to warn? 2. Did the landowner know of any dangers? 3. Did the landowner take reasonable precautions to correct any safety issues? If the landowner did not meet these requirements, then the landowner would be held liable. "A landowner's duty to a business invitee to exercise reasonable care in guarding against a dangerous condition may be satisfied by either correcting the condition, or, in those circumstances where it is reasonable

Premises Liability: It is the legal responsibility of a property owner to provide compensation for persons who sustain injuries while on their premises.

The jury found Mr Wilson guilty of manslaughter. However, Mr Wilson appealed to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that he believed the jury were not sufficiently directed as to the degree or extent of danger required in an act to make it a “dangerous act”, and, thus, make him liable for manslaughter. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Mr Wilson appealed once again to the High Court.

Every owner of a premise has the responsibility to maintain safe condition of the premises. The failure to do so leads to damage and trouble for other people. Potential hazards often lead to life-threatening situations, compelling the victim to undergo severe pain and loss. Premises Liability cases can be categorized into different type namely hazardous building accidents, negligent security, sidewalk accidents, slip & fall accidents, slippery floor accidents and elevator & escalator accidents.

“In the majority of cases that come before the courts, whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care can be determined from precedent created by earlier cases; for example manufacturers of goods owe a duty of care to consumers, motorist owe a duty of care to other road users, boat captains owe a duty of care to their passengers, teacher owe a duty of care to their students, occupier owe a duty of care to persons who come on to their property. . (Andy Gibson, Douglas Fraser, Business Law 5th edition, Pearson 2011 page No.165, 166 and 169).”

Stock Evaluation: According to our calculation: Tottenham will see a hike in its share price by 0.48% for every point increment and it can expect a 7 point increment per season which will result in a 3.35% hike in its share price.

The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.

From the 2001 projections, the company`s sales revenues reached the 90.9 million mark in 2001 representing a 15 million rupees growth over the previous year. Despite this remarkable increase, there are a number of financial challenges that must be taken into account when evaluating the forecast. For example, based on the company`s total assets turnover which tells how efficient the company is using its assets to generate sales, Kota`s total assets turnover ratio is suboptimal. In 2000, the