James Atkin, Baron Atkin

Delving into the Trinity Grammar haircut saga, during the crisis phase, there are several concerns which enraged the stakeholders, namely the School Council’s decision to sack Brown, its passive attitude, and empty promises. While the trigger event was unstable, the suddenness and negativity impacted attribution. Using the three attribution dimension, the Trinity Grammar haircut saga dons a high personal control, low external control, and a locus in the actor which could strengthen the perception

Why is the speech of Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] All ER1; [1935] AC 462; (1935) 25 Cr App R 72, important?" This essay will explore (Woolmington 1935) and develop an understanding as to why (Fosters Crown Law 1762), (Sankey’s golden thread speech 1935) and the exceptions played a significant importance in the case of Woolmington v DPP. In the case of Woolmington he had shot his wife, Violet who had left him to go and live with her mother, Woolmington claimed he accidentally shot

Duty of care Issue: Does defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery) owned duty of care to plaintiff (Tony)? Rules: * The neighbour principle: In Donoghue v Stevenson1, Lord Atkin concluded that we all owe a duty of care to our “neighbors”, meaning those persons who we should have in mind when we are contemplating actions that we take as we go about our business and private lives. * Neighbour Defined: “My neighbors are persons who are so closely and directly affected by

This essay is based on the subject of whether or not a duty of care, in terms of psychiatric harm can be established through an individual or individuals being negligent. The defendant’s negligence is either due to almost injuring the claimant, who then suffers from psychiatric harm, or killing or badly injuring a victim causing the claimant to suffer from psychiatric harm. Psychiatric harm can be defined as an assault on a person’s senses or mind rather than actual physical contact. It has to be

Mrs. Donoghue sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer who have, through neglect, allowed the snail to get inside the bottle. When the case reached the House of Lords, court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to their consumers. Lord Atkin gave narrow ratio reasoning on why the duty of care existed in manufacturer- consumer

twenty first century. The stance now taken upon an action for negligence is that it must be established that a duty of care is owed by the defender to the pursuer in order for liability to arise. This came about following the decision made by Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, and has been further developed in a number of other common law examples. Prior to this revolutionary judgement, there was a quantitative restriction as to where a duty of care would arise, primarily only in relationships

beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract. Prior to this, “fraudulent misstatement” or similar would have been required as a material fact when using the “…often quoted and variously explained” case as Lord Atkin stated when referring to the comments of Parke B . The Donoghue v Stevenson decision has been mostly

The overarching guidelines to the modern approach to liability for negligence in tort go back to Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] with Lord Atkin setting out the ‘neighbour’ principle, such that one has a duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which one can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure a neighbour (one who I ought reasonably have in contemplation as sufficiently close and directly affected by one’s act and omissions). However, the development of the common law approach

R v Stone; R v Dobinson [1977] QB 354 (CA) Court of Appeal; Criminal Division Issues: “Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.” Introduction: ‘R v Stone; R v Dobinson’ is significant as it addresses the point of ‘duty of care’ and the outcome was described as “highly controversial because of the low capabilities of the two accused” . Appellant Gwendoline

The law of negligence covers a broad spectrum, with negligence being defined to apply in ‘any situation where a defendant has breached a duty of care owed to a claimant’. This essay will seek to look into the different areas within the law of negligence, to assess Lord Toulson’s assertion in Micheal v Chief Constable of South Wales (2015) . There will be a primary focus on his notion of ‘incremental growth’ , ‘argument by analogy’ , and the necessity of ‘policy considerations’ , with particular