should not be liable in negligence in respect of the exercise of their statutory functions. Introduction Public bodies are “treated differently” from individuals in law in relation to the question of liability for negligent acts . This essay shall discuss the reasoning underlying the general principle suggesting that public bodies should not be held liable when exercising their statutory functions under the law of negligence for material loss. The essay shall first consider the law applicable to ‘Public
concerned with maintaining a coherence in the law and the effect a duty of care would have on their statutory duty which is outlined in the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) ("the Act"). In section 25, The act outlines to ‘regard the interests of the children as the paramount consideration.’ Through the application of the hill immunity, the High Court concluded in a joint judgement that no such duty of care existed and public authorities were immune to negligence claims. The High Court held that a duty of
Thesis presented for the LLM by Alan Raftery The Law of medical negligence, a comparative analysis of the issue of causation in cases of informed consent in Australia, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Student Number: 13205410. Table of contents.
In negligence cases, it must be established that the defendant’s breach of duty has caused the damage to the claimant. This causal link between the fault of the defendant and the harm of the claimant is usually provided by the ‘but for’ test of causation. However, there are several problems related to the test, rendering its sufficiency to become questionable. This essay will first explain when and how the ‘but for’ test is applied. Then, it will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the
Users 5 Auditors Defenses against Third Party Suits 8 The Impact of the Doctrine 10 Conclusion 11 References 12 Introduction This purpose of this research paper is to provide information about the importance of accountant’s liability to third party. In 1931, the case of Ultramares Corporation v. Touche brought about a very crucial segment of accountants liability to their clients. In this case, accountants were found negligent to the creditors.
is deals with negligence, more specifically causation regarding a motor vehicle accident. The passenger is alleging of the driver’s negligence in the operation of motorcycle which caused injury. More specifically, in this case, it was Mr. Clements that did not know about having a nail in this tire, and when it feel out, it caused a deflation. Mr. Clements wasn’t able to control his bike and crashed, causing a traumatic brain injury to his wife Mrs. Clements. In tort law, negligence is one of the
The Development of the General Concept of the Duty of Care 'It has been said many times that the [duty of care in the] law of negligence develops incrementally so that the fact that there is no reported case succeeding against the police similar to the present one is not necessarily a sufficient reason for striking out.' Lord Slynn of Hadley, Waters v Commissioner of Police  1 WLR 1607 at
English Tort Law and the Importance of Duty of Care in the Public Sector (Based on the Kent v Griffith Case from the year 2000) Tort Law is concerned with accidental injuries and deals with the distribution of losses occurred during those injuries. Every country has its own statutory law , thus according to these laws acts in its own way in different situations. Public health and ambulance services are of great importance when it comes to preventing injuries and damages. In the UK, before the 2000s
Analysis 4 Commercial Implications 5 Legal Implications 6 Conclusion 6 Bibliography 7 Appendix † Research Plan 8 Introduction The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd, which appear to contribute to the
that the area of Tort Law relating to psychiatric trauma is rather complex. In order for the claimant to successfully recover compensation the court needs to consider an amalgam of rules and exceptions as well as different categories of claimants, which can, at times, be hard to identify and justify. Critically discuss this statement considering the development in this area of Tort Law. Is the current distinction of primary and secondary victim justifiable? Is this area of law currently coherent and