Torts analytical frameworks
... - does the scope of risk deem the harm foreseeable? -if intervening factor, was it foreseeable such that the damage is still within the scope of risk and therefore D is still proximate cause? -normally liable only for foreseeable damages, except: 1) unexpectedly large physical injuries (take P as yo ...
... - does the scope of risk deem the harm foreseeable? -if intervening factor, was it foreseeable such that the damage is still within the scope of risk and therefore D is still proximate cause? -normally liable only for foreseeable damages, except: 1) unexpectedly large physical injuries (take P as yo ...
Y2K AND BEYOND -THE FUTURE OF LAW FOR PROFESSIONALS
... areas should behave, so far as possible, like separate buildings. One obvious purpose was to prevent the spread of fire. However, when fire broke out, it spread straight over the top of a fire wall because the builders had failed to complete it. On the far side of the fire wall it did considerable d ...
... areas should behave, so far as possible, like separate buildings. One obvious purpose was to prevent the spread of fire. However, when fire broke out, it spread straight over the top of a fire wall because the builders had failed to complete it. On the far side of the fire wall it did considerable d ...
- UVic LSS
... - Duty of care – question of law - Standard of care – question of fact *need damage - Causation – need a link - Remoteness – liability won’t apply if the damage is too remote (legal causation) Duty of Care Palsgraf Negligence is about relationships, not every relationship gives rise to a DOC - Onl ...
... - Duty of care – question of law - Standard of care – question of fact *need damage - Causation – need a link - Remoteness – liability won’t apply if the damage is too remote (legal causation) Duty of Care Palsgraf Negligence is about relationships, not every relationship gives rise to a DOC - Onl ...
- UVic LSS
... However, if it is not the same, check whether proximity is still there. If it is NOT analogous, go to the new duty test Crocker: “The common thread running through these cases is that one is under a duty not to place another person in a position where it is foreseeable that that person could suffer ...
... However, if it is not the same, check whether proximity is still there. If it is NOT analogous, go to the new duty test Crocker: “The common thread running through these cases is that one is under a duty not to place another person in a position where it is foreseeable that that person could suffer ...
Anns/Cooper Test
... Causation refers to the expression of relationship that must be found to exist b/w D’s breach and P’s damage to justify the D compensating the P (Snell v. Farrell) Determine what kind of causation test to apply: A. “But For” Test (Kauffman; Athey) Negligence action is established on a balance of pro ...
... Causation refers to the expression of relationship that must be found to exist b/w D’s breach and P’s damage to justify the D compensating the P (Snell v. Farrell) Determine what kind of causation test to apply: A. “But For” Test (Kauffman; Athey) Negligence action is established on a balance of pro ...
Subject 11
... (a) The answer to this part of the question required an explanation of the three part test for establishing the existence of a duty of care set out in the case of Caparo v Dickman [1990], not mere identification. It would need to have shown, for example that a person in the claimant’s position shoul ...
... (a) The answer to this part of the question required an explanation of the three part test for establishing the existence of a duty of care set out in the case of Caparo v Dickman [1990], not mere identification. It would need to have shown, for example that a person in the claimant’s position shoul ...
What is tort? - WRCBusinessManagementWiki2010
... defendant should have regarded as being at risk though the precise loss/injury/damage actually suffered by the plaintiff may not have been foreseeable• all that is required that it was reasonably foreseeable that the class of people, of whom the plaintiff was one, could have suffered some loss/injur ...
... defendant should have regarded as being at risk though the precise loss/injury/damage actually suffered by the plaintiff may not have been foreseeable• all that is required that it was reasonably foreseeable that the class of people, of whom the plaintiff was one, could have suffered some loss/injur ...