Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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".
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd, [1] commonly known as Wagon Mound (No. 1), is a landmark tort law case, which imposed a remoteness rule for causation in negligence. The Privy Council [2] held that a party can be held liable only for loss that was reasonably foreseeable. Contributory negligence on the part of the ...
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.
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]
[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 harm within the risk (HWR) test determines whether the victim was among the class of persons who could foreseeably be harmed, and whether the harm was foreseeable within the class of risks. It is the strictest test of causation, made famous by Benjamin Cardozo in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. case under New York state law. [10]
The principle of double effect – also known as the rule of double effect, the doctrine of double effect, often abbreviated as DDE or PDE, double-effect reasoning, or simply double effect – is a set of ethical criteria which Christian philosophers have advocated for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act ...
harm must be reasonably foreseeable as a potential result of the defendant's conduct (as established in Donoghue v Stevenson), the parties must be in a relationship of proximity, and; it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. The final conclusion arose in the context of a negligent preparation of accounts for a company.