Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This means that the reasonable foreseeability test is not always appropriate for cases where the acts of the claimant may demonstrate some fault. Nevertheless, the courts can award damages based on foreseeability where public policy requires it, e.g. in the egg-shell skull cases such as Smith v Leech Brain & Co. [5]
The first is foreseeability. It is not, and could not be, in issue between these parties that reasonable foreseeability of harm is a necessary ingredient of a relationship in which a duty of care will arise: Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1988] A.C. 175, 192A. It is also common ground that reasonable foreseeability, although a ...
The Council decided that rather than go with precedent (authority) they would determine a principle from a range of cases, in a similar way as Lord Atkin did in Donoghue v Stevenson, and their principle was primarily a single test for foreseeability which they argued was a logical link between the damage and the liability (culpability).
The reasonable foreseeability of damages is not decisive, but it can be used as a subsidiary test in the application of a flexible criterion. The court held that it is dangerous to attempt to distill fixed or generally applicable rules or principles from a process of comparison with other cases.
The resounding test attempts to reconcile the need for a control device, proximity of relationship, with foreseeability of harm. Lord Oliver's speech in Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman summarises the test for a duty of care: [19] The harm which occurred must be a reasonable foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct;
The three-stage Caparo test for establishing a duty of care requires (i) foreseeability of damage, (ii) a relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood and (iii) that the situation should be one in which the court considers it would be fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of given scope on one ...
The test comprises three elements: reasonable foreseeability of harm; reasonable precautions to prevent the occurrence of such foreseeable harm; and; failure to take the reasonable precautions. The standard was well-articulated in Kruger v Coetzee: For the purposes of liability culpa arises if a) a diligens paterfamilias in the position of the ...
The test for remoteness of damage in nuisance is reasonable foreseeability, as established in Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc; [33] if the defendant was using their land unreasonably and causing a nuisance, the defendant is liable even if they used reasonable care to avoid creating a nuisance. The test is whether or not ...