3008327
Description
Mind Map by NJingT, updated more than 1 year ago
More
|
Created by jasmine-goh
almost 9 years ago
|
|
|
Copied by NJingT
almost 9 years ago
|
|
Suit against firm in charge of fire hoses dismissed
- ‘Even if Rhythme had breached
its duty of care, the fire was
caused by large combustible
materials stacked by Union
outside its warehouse, which
posed a high fire risk’.
- Defences of
Negligence -
Contributory
Negligence
- Partial defence: D partially liable for damage or
injury caused to the plaintiff if D
prove P contributes to his/her own
injuries by failing to take reasonable care
for his/her own safety & this failure
caused damage suffered.
- P partly to blame for causing the damage
by refusing to take reasonable care for
its own safety, which caused the
damage.
- P partly to blame for causing the damage
by refusing to take reasonable care for
its own safety, which caused the
damage.
- Partial defence: D partially liable for damage or
injury caused to the plaintiff if D
prove P contributes to his/her own
injuries by failing to take reasonable care
for his/her own safety & this failure
caused damage suffered.
- Defences of
Negligence -
Contributory
Negligence
- "But a judge has ruled that the inferno had
blazed so out of control that even if nearby
hose reels were working, it would not have
made a difference."
- Law of Torts -
Negligence -
Damage caused -
The ' But For' test
- ‘Would the damage have
happened but for the
defendant’s negligence?
- Fire would have caused damages to P
even if hose reel was in working condition
as the flame was proven to have gone out
of control too quickly even with a working
hose reel, the fire would not be put out or
be brought under control.
- P’s property would have been
damaged even without the D's
breach of duty.
- P’s property would have been
damaged even without the D's
breach of duty.
- Fire would have caused damages to P
even if hose reel was in working condition
as the flame was proven to have gone out
of control too quickly even with a working
hose reel, the fire would not be put out or
be brought under control.
- ‘Would the damage have
happened but for the
defendant’s negligence?
- Law of Torts -
Negligence -
Damage caused -
The ' But For' test
- Duty of
Care (DOC)
- D (Rhythme
Technology) owed
the public a DOC, (Foreseeability)
- D could foresee that the public would
rely on the hose in case of emergencies
and if the hose is not well maintained,
the result will be disastrous or life
threatening.
- D could foresee that the public would
rely on the hose in case of emergencies
and if the hose is not well maintained,
the result will be disastrous or life
threatening.
- D (Rhythme
Technology) owed
the public a DOC, (Foreseeability)
- Breach of Duty of
Care - Standard of
Care
- The appropriate standard
of care that the law should
impose on a fire hose
company is to provide
checks on a regular basis.
- Though D owed the public
a duty of care, they did not
breach that duty.
- “Rhythme's lawyer R. Nandakumar
countered that its staff had
conducted a physical test on the
hose reel nearest to Union's
premises in September 2009, and
found the various components of
the system were in order. The
results had been recorded. “
- “Rhythme's lawyer R. Nandakumar
countered that its staff had
conducted a physical test on the
hose reel nearest to Union's
premises in September 2009, and
found the various components of
the system were in order. The
results had been recorded. “
- Though D owed the public
a duty of care, they did not
breach that duty.
- The appropriate standard
of care that the law should
impose on a fire hose
company is to provide
checks on a regular basis.
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.