Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The harm which occurred must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct; A sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood exists between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage; It is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, [1] with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. [2]
Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (the federal mail and wire fraud statute), added by the United States Congress in 1988. [1] The idea of this law was to criminalize not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as the "honest services" of a public official.
The degree of knowledge which the defendant had about the probability and likely magnitude of harm to the plaintiff. [10]: p 230–1 Special rules exist for the establishment of duty of care where the plaintiff suffered mental harm, or where the defendant is a public authority. [12]
2.8 Legal implications. 3 United ... Meeting of the minds 2; Abstraction principle 4,5; Posting rule 1; ... when it is reasonably foreseeable that some harm will ...
In medical law and medical ethics, the duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm. [1] If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the clinician has the responsibility to take steps to warn potential victims, and if necessary, initiate involuntary commitment.
[15] [page needed] [16] The court held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim.
The case's main significance is that, after the shift within the common law of negligence from strict liability [1] to a reasonable standard of care, [2] this case advocated a middle way, namely: Even if the loss or harm is not itself foreseeable, liability may arise provided the actual loss falls with a "foreseeable class of harm".