Occupiers' Liability from the Common Law

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

Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

Nevertheless, In the case of Mitchell there is evidently a relationship and closeness between the two parties, the council and the tenant. In the case of Sutradhar v Natural Environment research Council, Lord Brennan said that a key factor in deciding when there was proximity was whether the defendant has “a measure of control over and responsibility for the potentially dangerous situation”. In the case of Mitchell, as the local authority it is obvious that the council do have responsibility for their tenants, but the extent to which this duty reaches the remit of the authority its seems is only when there is a close organisational association for which it an association for blame can be made. The act third parties in particular criminal acts falls out of this remit.

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

In this leaflet I will describe the law of negligence and occupier’s liability, economic loss and psychiatric loss.

To hold a landowner liable for physical harm to trespassing children, a plaintiff must prove that children, because of their youth, do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it. Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 599 P.2d 209 (Ariz. 1979). If a child, while realizing the danger of his or her conduct, disregards the risk out of the spirit of bravado or

The fourth amendment can be broken down into several different categories that involve law enforcement officers interacting with citizens and their possessions. These categories include searching persons for evidence, searching locations or things for evidence seizing evidence, and seizing people (Kanovitz 185). All of the actions listed play a major role in the Criminal Justice system and heavily affects how police officers can operate.

2. Leanne: As a tenant who rent her parents theatre for one week, also the one that is responsible for and has control over the activities carried on at those premises, she is also consider being the occupier. For Leanne’s case, if she is below 18, then the contract between her and her parents are invalid, then she could not be sued. Otherwise she should be going through the following 4+3 negligence analysis as same as her parents.

This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

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

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the

This paper will be discussing the concept of strict liability along with the concept of absolute liability within the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978). In doing so, this paper will explain how strict liability offences strike a good balance between the policy rationales for absolute liability in regulatory offences and the criminal law principle that only the morally blameworthy may be punished, and how the courts have interpreted absolute liability offence and their relationship with the Charter of Rights.

In the case of “Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]”, the difficult legal problem was that Mrs. Donoghue could not successfully sue Mr. Minghella, the owner of the Wellmeadow Café in Paisley, either in contract or in tort. She actually tried to, but she had no contract with him, because she was not the one who had made the order in the cafe. Therefore, she had no contract under which it could be stated that he had guaranteed her the drink fit for consumption. It was Mrs. Donoghue’s friend who had ordered and paid for the drink. Mr Minghella poured the first drink, yet this is not significant to the result in any way.