Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
R v Adomako [1994] UKHL 6, was a landmark United Kingdom criminal law case where the required elements to satisfy the legal test for gross negligence manslaughter at common law were endorsed and refined. [1]
The Adomako test is objective, but a defendant who is reckless as defined in Stone may well be the more readily found to be grossly negligent to a criminal degree. ... In our judgment unless an identified individual's conduct, characterisable as gross criminal negligence, can be attributed to the company, the company is not, in the present ...
Gross negligence is the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party." [ 1 ] In some jurisdictions a person injured as a result of gross negligence may be able to recover punitive damages from the person who caused the injury or loss.
The court ruled that the lone transaction for the sale of one item did not establish purposeful availment. Holding: The Ninth Circuit departed from the Zippo test and held that specific jurisdiction is found by "minimum contact" through a three-part test: purposeful direction, a forum related claim, and fairness. Attaway v.
Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1977] UKHL 4, [1978] AC 728 was a decision of the House of Lords that established a broad test for determining the existence of a duty of care in the tort of negligence, called the Anns test or sometimes the two-stage test for true third-party negligence.
The expression has also been incorporated in Canadian patent jurisprudence, notably Beloit v.Valmet Oy [9] in its discussion of the test for obviousness. [10]In Australia, the "Clapham omnibus" expression has inspired the New South Wales and Victorian equivalents, "the man on the Bondi tram" (a now disused tram route in Sydney), [11] "the man on the Bourke Street tram" (), [12] and "the ...
Contributory negligence on the part of the dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance. The Wagon Mound (No 1) should not be confused with the successor case of the Overseas Tankship v Miller Steamship or "Wagon Mound (No 2)", which concerned the ...
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test". The House of Lords, following the Court of Appeal, set out a "three-fold test".