Ad
related to: reasonable foreseeability test for concrete
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 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 ...
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]
In addition, a threshold of foreseeability must be met for the test to be applied. Objective foreseeability was not classified as a stage in the test outlined, with the reasoning that "it would be fulfilled in almost all cases" and would be "too wide a criterion to be effective as a legal control mechanism".
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 ...
As for remoteness, the court found that the test for establishing if an effect was sufficiently remote from a cause would be that of reasonable foreseeability. [9] Considering the present facts, the court noted that the "but for" test of causation would apply in issues of both contract and tort. [10]
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;
Chapman v Hearse is a significant case in common law related to duty of care, reasonable foreseeability and novus actus interveniens within the tort of negligence.The case concerned three parties; Chapman who drove negligently, Dr Cherry who assisted him on the side of the road, and Hearse who, in driving negligently, killed Dr Cherry while he was assisting Chapman.
Ad
related to: reasonable foreseeability test for concrete