msgbox
1
a.Explain the duty of care
The meaning of duty of care is no liability for a failure to take due care unless there was a duty to take care in the first place. A duty of care is impod by both the common law and by statutory law. For example, the provisions of the Health&Safety At Work Act1974. The duty of care is therefore someone whom the defender ought to have contemplated as within sufficient proximity to the defender to be owed a duty of care. you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foree would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, tomathen, in law , is my neighbour? The answer ems to be : persons who are so cloly and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when i am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question. In the Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) ca, in this ca, Mrs. Donoghue bought an opaque bottle of ginger beer for her friends in a cafe in paisley, and the shopkeeper poured some ginger beer over ice cream in a glass which Mrs. Donoghue drank. Then ,her friends f
ind out the decompod snail in the bottle.canteen的意思 Mrs. Donoghue alleged becau drunk the contaminated ginger beer, she suffered a rious illness. Becau Mrs. Donoghue didn't have a contract with the ller nor with the manufacturer of the goods, So the only saving way is the manufacturer not taking care in the production of the product.revid( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P279-283)
b.Is Carla correct? The common law and statutory law.
It not correct, The definition of Common Law Duty is a personal one to take reasonable care for the employee’s safety. He is required to take the same care as a reasonable and prudent employer would take in the same circumstances. This includes a duty to provide safe working premis. And about the Statutory Duty, the main statute here is the Health and Safety At work Act 1974 (HASAWA). expert什么意思This was impod on earlier existing safety legislation which was not repealed, and so earlier legislation regulating safety in the workplace can still be relevant. And the implied terms are tho which are not actually stated, but still impo obligations on the parties, and the reasons such as necessary to
make the contract work, obvious or assumed, by custom and practice, by statute.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P326-329)
2. The defences about the contributory negligence and Volenti non fit injuria
About the contributory negligence, as well as the above defences, a defender may argue that the pursuer contributed to his or her own loss. And the defender has been negligent but the pursuer’s own actions, in failing to take care for his own safety, have partly contributed to his injuries. For example, in the ca about Sayers v Harlow Urban Council (1958), Sayers becau of trying to climb out of a faulty locked toilet cubicle, she got hurt. And her actions were not a novus actus interveniens , the local authority was liable. However, becau she tried to climb out whilst putting weight on the toilet roll fitting which was fragile, the damages payable were reduced by 25%. In the ca, Chris get hurts becau of he fell from the ladder he was on , no one help him with the ladder. But the company during him training always say when he do this work need a person to help him to with the ladder. B人教版英语必修一ut he don’palladiat ask anyone to help, this is a contributory negligence.T
he meaning of Volenti Non Fit Injuria , it must be shown that the pursuer freely and voluntarily with full knowledge of the risk involved agreed to take that risk. The defender must establish that the pursuer had free choice and this would not apply if he/she acted out of duty or out of fear of losing his/her job. in the ca of Walton&Mor v Dorrington(1977), a cretary worked in an office where colleagues smoked but there was good ventilation. When they were moved to another office without such ventilation the smoke became an irritant and she left when the employers would not make any changes. The employers were held in breach of a duty to provide" a working environment which is reasonably suitable." In the ca, this work which Chris always do it, Chris know the risk of this work, but he don在线日文翻译’t ask anyone to help, caus him fell from the ladder. This is Volenti Non Fit Injuria.(伊藤隆大 Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P300)
3. Explain Negligence
Negligence is the most common delict and an action in delict aris where harm is caud carelessly or inadvertently. The law of negligence has developed to protect individ
uals from physical harm to the person(including psychiatric harm), and to property. Financial interests (with some exceptions) are only protected where the financial loss is conquential to the harm to the person or to property. in the ca of Bourhill v Young (1943), the defender drove a motorcycle , and he collided with a car and was killed. The pursuer was on the far side of the tram when the accident occurred and did not witness the accident although she heard it. And she saw blood on the road later, then becau of the nervous shock, get a subquent miscarriage. It was held that it is not the fault of defender, becau defender could not have reasonable foreen, and would caus injury to the pursuer in her position behind the tram, she did not have the relevant proximity to the accident.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P278)
disappearing4. Explain what ‘vicarious liability’
The definition of the Vicarious Liability , in certain circumstances, someone can be liable for another’s delictual act. This can ari through agency, partnership and employment. Liability is transferred to the person benefiting or gaining by the actions of the wrongdoer(
and they are more likely to be able to pay and/ or be covered by insurance). in the ca of Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co(1957), a father and son were employed by the same company. The son , whilst driving a lorry, Knocked over his father who claimed damages from the company. The company's insurers paid the father and then brought a successful action against the son for the amount paid.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P266-275)
5. Which latin maxim proven to successfully bring a claim for negligence
