¡GoConqr estrena diseño! Cuéntanos qué te parece.

Regístrate gratis

Test

Rylands v Fletcher and negligence case rules

Doom Duck 4 preguntas

Hacer el test

Este test tiene tipos de pregunta que se abren en el reproductor de siempre.

Preguntas del test (4)

  1. 1[blank_start]Rylands[blank_end] v [blank_start]Fletcher[blank_end]: Rationale: Defendants can pay [blank_start]insurance[blank_end] to protect themselves from liability. Plaintiffs are protected from dangerous neighbour activities

    [blank_start]Read[blank_end] v [blank_start]Lyons[blank_end]: “Escape” means escape from the defendant’s [blank_start]area of control.[blank_end] The location of the person, damage, or injury is irrelevant.

    [blank_start]Rickards[blank_end] v [blank_start]Lothian[blank_end]: Act of a Stranger. Natural use, Judges have some [blank_start]discretion[blank_end] when weighing the danger and benefit.

    [blank_start]Cambridge Water Company[blank_end] v ECL: Foreseeability of damage of the relevant type is a requirement. Foreseeability of the [blank_start]damage, NOT the escape.[blank_end]

    [blank_start]Hamilton v Papakura City Council:[blank_end] Not foreseeable if only affects one outlier.

    [blank_start]Donoghue[blank_end] v [blank_start]Stevenson[blank_end]: Rationale: The moral wrongdoer should pay.

    [blank_start]Grant[blank_end] v [blank_start]Australian Knitting Mills:[blank_end] “Res Ipsa Loquitur” – [blank_start]Negligence inferred from defect[blank_end]

    [blank_start]Jull[blank_end] v [blank_start]Wilson and Horton[blank_end]: Obiter: A good warning must [blank_start]disclose true nature of warning[blank_end], what the [blank_start]danger is[blank_end], suggestions of [blank_start]inspection[blank_end], place [blank_start]time limit on use.[blank_end]

    [blank_start]Bowen v Paramount Builders[blank_end]: A builder owes a duty of care to [blank_start]subsequent purchasers[blank_end] to not create hidden defects.
    1. ARylands
    2. BFletcher
    3. Cinsurance
    4. Darea of control.
    5. ERead
    6. FLyons
    7. GRickards
    8. HLothian
    9. Idiscretion
    10. JCambridge Water Company
    11. Kdamage, NOT the escape.
    12. LHamilton v Papakura City Council:
    13. MDonoghue
    14. NStevenson
    15. OGrant
    16. PAustralian Knitting Mills:
    17. QNegligence inferred from defect
    18. RJull
    19. SWilson and Horton
    20. Tdisclose true nature of warning
    21. Udanger is
    22. Vinspection
    23. Wtime limit on use.
    24. XBowen v Paramount Builders
    25. Ysubsequent purchasers
  2. 2Rylands v Fletcher
    Elements:
    -Thing [blank_start]likely[blank_end] to do mischief if it escapes
    -Didn’t occur naturally/ [blank_start]Brought onto land[blank_end]
    -Activity for your [blank_start]own purposes[blank_end]
    -Escaped [blank_start]outside your control.[blank_end] The location of the person, damage, or injury is irrelevant. ([blank_start]Read V Lyons[blank_end])
    -Non-Natural use. ([blank_start]Rickards V Lothian[blank_end])
    -Foreseeability of Damage, not the escape. ([blank_start]Cambridge Water Company[blank_end] V Eastern Leather/ Hamilton V Papakura District Council)
    Limitations:
    -Act of god: [blank_start]Sudden and unprecedented[blank_end]
    -Act of A stranger [blank_start](Rickards V Lothian)[blank_end]
    -Plaintiff’s fault
    1. Alikely
    2. BBrought onto land
    3. Cown purposes
    4. Doutside your control.
    5. ERead V Lyons
    6. FRickards V Lothian
    7. GCambridge Water Company
    8. HSudden and unprecedented
    9. I(Rickards V Lothian)
  3. 3[blank_start]Donoghue[blank_end] V [blank_start]Stevenson[blank_end]
    Elements:
    -Must Prove: a [blank_start]duty of care[blank_end], a [blank_start]breach[blank_end], a damage, a [blank_start]connection[blank_end] between the damage and act of negligence.
    -No possibility of [blank_start]inspection[blank_end], defect must be hidden.
    -Sold in the [blank_start]form it was intended[blank_end] to be used.
    -“[blank_start]Res Ipsa Loquitur[blank_end]” – Negligence inferred from defect ([blank_start]Grant V Australian Knitting Mill[blank_end])
    -Obiter: If you’re dealing with dangerous things, your duty is harsher and wider. ([blank_start]Jull V Wilson & Horton[blank_end])
    -Obiter: A good warning must [blank_start]disclose true nature of warning[blank_end], what the danger is, suggestions of inspection, place [blank_start]time limit[blank_end] on use. (Jull V [blank_start]Wilson & Horton[blank_end])

    Limitations:
    - JOINT [blank_start]TORT-FEASOR[blank_end]
    -Builder isn’t liable if they [blank_start]buyers already know of the defect.[blank_end]
    1. ADonoghue
    2. BStevenson
    3. Cduty of care
    4. Dbreach
    5. Econnection
    6. Finspection
    7. Gform it was intended
    8. HRes Ipsa Loquitur
    9. IGrant V Australian Knitting Mill
    10. JJull V Wilson & Horton
    11. Kdisclose true nature of warning
    12. Ltime limit
    13. MWilson & Horton
    14. NTORT-FEASOR
    15. Obuyers already know of the defect.
  4. 4[blank_start]Rickards V Lothian[blank_end]
    -Act of a Stranger: A malicious act by a third party that the defendant has no control over. (rationale: contrary to reason/justice, no means of preventing/controlling)
    -Re-define Non-Natural Use: To be non-natural, it must be a special use which increases danger to others. The activity must have a reasonable degree of risk.
    -Re-define Natural Use: Ordinary activity that benefits the community. Judges have some discretion when [blank_start]weighing the danger and benefit.[blank_end]

    [blank_start]Cambridge water company[blank_end] V Eastern Leather
    Obiter: (Lord Goff, house of lords) “Creation of Employment not sufficient in fulfilling the benefit element. Benefit to small industrial community not enough.” “The benefit to the community natural use has gone too far.”

    ------
    Donoghue V Stevenson
    Only liable to persons so closely and directly affected that you [blank_start]ought to have considered them[blank_end]
    Rationale: [blank_start]The moral wrongdoer should pay.[blank_end]

    Grant V Australian Knitting Mill
    -Donoghue V Stevenson dealt with a sealed bottle. This case dealt with a loose product that’s susceptible to tampering. (failed: You owe a duty of care unless you can prove that tampering DID occur “act of stranger”)

    Jull V Wilson & Horton
    Obiter:
    -If you’re dealing with dangerous things, your duty is harsher and wider.
    -A good warning must disclose true nature of warning, what the danger is, suggestions of inspection, [blank_start]place time limit on use[blank_end].

    Bowen V Paramount Builders
    -Buyers don’t [blank_start]require personal inspection,[blank_end] entitled to rely on skill of builder (if house is newish)
    -Builder isn’t liable if they buyers already know of the defect.
    -Cooke J “everytime there’s a new and distinct damage, you have another fresh 6 years to sue”
    -Court of Appeal: If a subsequent purchaser sues the builders again (allowed according to Cooke J) because the previous owner didn’t use the settlement money to fix the defect, the builders can bring in the prev owner as a [blank_start]joint tort-feasor[blank_end].




    1. ARickards V Lothian
    2. Bweighing the danger and benefit.
    3. CCambridge water company
    4. DThe moral wrongdoer should pay.
    5. Eought to have considered them
    6. Fplace time limit on use
    7. Grequire personal inspection,
    8. Hjoint tort-feasor

Información

Descripción
Test sobre Sin título, creado por Doom Duck el 22/08/2019.
Idioma
English
Visitas
1
Valoración
Aún sin valoraciones
Valora este test
Valora este test

Escríbenos

¿Sobre qué es tu mensaje?

¿Qué te parece el nuevo diseño?

¿Te gusta?