Suit against firm in charge of fire hoses dismissed

jasmine-goh
Mind Map by jasmine-goh, updated more than 1 year ago
jasmine-goh
Created by jasmine-goh over 6 years ago
31
0

Description

negligence

Resource summary

Suit against firm in charge of fire hoses dismissed
  1. ‘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’.
    1. Defences of Negligence-Contributory Negligence
      1. partial defence that allows the defendant to be only partially liable for the damage or injury caused to the plaintiff provided that D can prove that P contributes to his/her own injuries by failing to take reasonable care for his/her own safety and that this failure was a cause of the damage suffered.
        1. P-Union Concept Maufacturers is partly to blame for causing the damage by refusing to take reasonable care for its own safety,cuasing damage.
    2. "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."
      1. Law of Torts-Negligence-Damage caused-The ' But For' test
        1. ‘Would the damage have happened but for the defendant’s negligence?
          1. the fire would have caused damages to the Plaintiff even if the 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.
            1. This shows that the Plaintiff’s property would have been damaged even without the Defendant’s breach of duty.
      2. Duty Of care
        1. The defendant ( Rhythme Technology ) owed the public a duty of care
          1. Rhythme Technology 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 .
        2. Breach of care -standard of care
          1. The appropriate standard of care that the law should impose on a fire hose company is to provide checks on a regular basis.
            1. Though D ( Rhythme Technology ) owed the public a duty of care ,it did not breach that duty .
              1. “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. “
          Show full summary Hide full summary

          Similar

          Contract Law
          sherhui94
          How Parliament Makes Laws
          harryloftus505
          A-Level Law: Theft
          amyclare96
          AQA AS LAW, Unit 1, Section A, Parliamentary Law Making 1/3
          Nerdbot98
          A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Insanity
          Jessica 'JessieB
          Law Commission 1965
          ria rachel
          A2 Law: Special Study - Robbery
          Jessica 'JessieB
          The Criminal Courts
          thornamelia
          Omissions
          ameliathorn0325
          AS Law Jury Case Quiz
          Fionnghuala Malone
          Criminal Law
          jesusreyes88