Law Slater V Clay Cross Co Ltd

There are two defences to an action in negligence: contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk. (FoBL, 2005, p83) This case only involves contributory negligence.

In Handleman, the plaintiff alleged that he could not have foreseen that he could be injured by exposed outcropping of rock. Handleman at 13. Similarly, plaintiff Adair alleges that “none of us bargained on putting our lives on the line by climbing without an anchor on a practice climb.” The court in Handleman forecloses this line of inquiry into foreseeability by reasoning that assumption of risk does not require “clairvoyance to forsee the exact accident and injury that in fact occurs.” Id. Consequently, the court held that all that is required to prove assumption of risk is that the injury “be within the range of possibilities.” Id. Falling is certainly within the range of possibility for anyone who is climbing high up on a rock formation, and therefore Adair assumed the risk of falling in the instant case.

Contributory Negligence: A court may find a plaintiff contributory negligent or partially responsible for their injuries.

Benge, R v (1865) pre-SCJA 1873 D, a foreman platelayer misread the timetable as to when a train was to arrive. He placed a flagman at the wrong distance giving insufficient warning to the driver. A train left the rails at a spot where rails had been taken up and not replaced. The negligence was that D did not take the correct care to make sure he was working at the right time, when any reasonable person would have known how dangerous the job can be and to double check they are correct.

Last of all, Cost of avoiding harm needs to be taken into account. The argument that a danger was too costly to eliminate is not a legitimate argument. However courts do recognise a balance between the risk and the cost of eliminating it. If the risk is remote and the precautions needed to be taken are very expensive, the defendants lack of action by not doing anything may be justified. The greater the risk is and the more likely it is, the consideration is given towards the cost of the eliminating measures which the defendants may have taken to safeguard. The decision in these circumstances relies on whether the courts decide that the defendants had acted reasonable in the given

Negligence: A person acts negligently if they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain consequence would result from their actions. Although the level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, the difference between the two is that with recklessness, the actor must be aware of the risk involved with her actions, whereas, for negligence, the actor is not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were”(National Paralegal College, 2017).

Ronnie was the primary victim as he was placed in physical danger whilst in the truck and suffered psychiatric harm as a result. For this sole reason, he is owed a duty of care by his employers. The nature of their relationship means . Failure to install a new safety screen equates to the company's failure to meet the standard of care and they are liable for breach. Ronnie's refusal to wear a helmet is an example of negligent contribution and the two requirements of this principle are satisfied: Ronnie did not take proper care for his own safety and said failure was contributory to the damage he suffered. This is similar to the Capps v Miller case of 1989, where the claimant did not fasten his helmet, subsequently suffering from serious head injuries. Contributory negligence operates as a defence for Bricks R Us, however it is only partial to avoid absolution of liability, since the court's primary aim is to compensate the

Historically, the transferred intent doctrine has been applied to five intentional torts. The five torts are battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to chattel, and trespass to land. Under transferred intent, if the defendant intends any of these five torts, but her acts, instead or in addition, result in any of the other five intentional torts, the defendant is liable, even though she did not intend the other tort. The transferred intent rule may have emerged because these five torts were historically associated with a single action for trespass. The concept of trespass was not limited to the contemporary meaning of trespass to land, but embodied many types of direct injuries. It is important, consequently, Torts, is a large area of private law concerned with compensating those who have been injured by the wrongdoing of others to recognize that courts have applied the concept only to these five intentional torts. The law of torts is mainly judge-made law; courts over the centuries have defined people 's rights and obligations with respect to their fellows. These are constantly in flux and change to meet new technological and social concerns. The example for our case would be the case law of Donoghue v. Stevenson. This is one of the most important cases in English tort law history. The judges determined that each citizen has a duty of care for his or her fellow citizens where it is

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to

The impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration.

The leading cases, CIR v Mitsubishi Motors Ltd [1995] and Commissioner of Taxation v James Flood Pty Ltd [1953] that reflect a taxpayer

Conclusion: Therefore for the above case I would say that the passenger would succeed in his negligence claim against the tramway authorities. As there was a duty of care owed by the driver and tramway authority which they had breached in result the plaintiff was

It is apparent that Steven was not paying enough attention when crossing the road on the night of the accident. Thus, Steven was, to a degree, also negligent as he did not adequately check that the road was clear. When deciding the degree of contributory negligence the courts must look at what reduction of damages pay-out is "just and equitable having regard 's to the claimant 's share in the responsibility for the damage". In order to reach a percentage of blameworthiness for each side, a broad comparison must be made of both the individual contributions from the pursuer and the defender, looking at both the causation of damage and the blameworthiness.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,