Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In this context, risk is the combination of the frequency (likelihood) and the consequence of a specified hazardous event. Several factors are likely to be considered when deciding whether or not a risk has been reduced as far as reasonably practicable: [2] [3] Health and safety guidelines and codes of practice
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 dock owners was also relevant in the decision, and was essential to the outcome, although not central to this case's legal significance.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co or Wagon Mound (No. 2), [1] is a landmark tort case, concerning the test for breach of duty of care in negligence. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held that loss will be recoverable where the extent of possible harm is so great that a reasonable man would guard against it (even if the chance of the loss occurring was very small).
Consequential damages must also be pled with greater specificity. The plaintiff has it on their burden to prove that the damages occurred are not only the proximate consequence of the breach, but also that they were "reasonably foreseeable" or within the "contemplation of the parties" when the parties agreed to the terms of the contract. The ...
Generally, the simplest way to think of the risk-utility test is the Hand Formula applied to products. The Third Restatement of the Law, Torts: Products Liability §2(b) [ 1 ] favors the risk-utility test over the Second Restatement of the Law, Torts §402(a), which favored the consumer expectations test . §2(b) states, in part, "A product is ...
The Summary. The Los Angeles-area fires are a worst-case scenario caused by powerful winds that struck after months without rain. Fire experts, past reports and risk assessments had all ...
It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks ...
This is an objective standard where the 'reasonable person' test is applied to determine if the defendant has breached their duty of care. In other words, it is the response of a reasonable person to a foreseeable risk. The standard of care naturally varies over time, and is affected by circumstantial factors.