Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
3 Notes. 4 External links. Toggle the table of contents ... (2 Hurl. & Colt. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299, 1863) is an English tort law case that first applied the doctrine ...
R v Instan (1893) 1 QB 450 is an English criminal law manslaughter case confirming how the actus reus of manslaughter can be one of inactive negligence (that is, neglect), as the common law imposes a basic duty of care onto an adult who voluntarily undertakes the regular care of another.
F v R, [1] is a tort law case. It is a seminal case on what information medical professionals have a duty to inform patients of at common law. It pre-dates the decision in Rogers v Whitaker [2] which substantially followed F v R by departing from the Bolam test, [3] at common law in regards to the duty of medical professionals to disclose risks to a patient.
A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, [1] rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment , tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations .
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 ...
Vaughan v. Menlove is often cited as the seminal case which introduced the “reasonable person” test not only to the tort law, but to jurisprudence generally. [2] [3] This assertion is false. [4] A 2019 law review article discovered that the misidentification of Vaughan v.
Lumley v Gye [1853] EWHC QB J73 is a foundational English tort law case, heard in 1853, in the field of economic tort.It held that one may claim damages from a third person who interferes in the performance of a contract by another.
Hartley v Ponsonby [1857] 26 LJ QB 322 is a leading judgment on the subject of consideration in English contract law.The judgment constituted an amendment to the precedent set by Stilk v Myrick [1] that allowed contractual duties to be considered valid consideration for a future contract if the duties had changed to the extent that the original contract is considered discharged.