DOCSLIB.ORG

I: Negligence: Duty of Care

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
I: Negligence: Duty of Care © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 0 The Barrie Guide to Tort 2020 Volume One Barrie Goldstone Head of the School of Law London Metropolitan University © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 1 CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION TO TORT 1 DICTIONARY DEFINITION 2 TYPES OF TORT 3 THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW OF TORT 4 TYPES OF TORTIOUS DAMAGES PART 2: THE ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE 5 THE THREE STAGES PART 3: THE DUTY OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE 6 THE GENESIS OF NEGLIGENCE: Heaven v. Pender 7 THE NEIGHBOUR PRINCIPLE: Donoghue v. Stevenson 8 CONFIRMING THE TEST IN DONOGHUE V. STEVENSON 9 EXTENDING THE DUTY OF CARE: Denning and Co. 10 THE POLICY ELEMENTS: McLoughlin v. O’Brian 11 THE HIGH-WATER MARK: Junior Books v. Veitchi Co. Ltd. 12 THE RETREAT FROM ANNS v. MERTON: Lord Keith and Co. 13 REINTERPRETING ANNS v. MERTON 14 ISOLATING PROXIMITY: Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 15 THE TRIPARTITE TEST: Caparo v. Dickman PART 4: THE DRIVE OF PUBLIC POLICY IN DUTY OF CARE 16 THE DRIVE OF POLICY: Practical Solutions 17 ACTS AND OMISSIONS 18 THE EMERGENCY SERVICES: Duty of Care and Omissions 19 THE EMERGENCY SERVICES: Duty of Care and Commissions 20 PUBLIC POLICY AND THE ARMED FORCES 21 PUBLIC POLICY AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES 22 THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN 23 THE PHYSICAL SAFETY OF CHILDREN 24 A DUTY TO ADOPTIVE PARENTS? 25 PUBLIC POLICY AND WRONGFUL BIRTH 26 BARRISTERS’ IMMUNITY © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 2 PART 5: DUTY OF CARE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 27 POLICY, ARTICLE 6 AND STRIKING OUT ACTIONS 28 THE OSMAN CASE 29 THE CHILD ABUSE CASES 30 ARTICLES 2 AND 3: Police Liability PART 6: BREACH OF THE DUTY OF CARE 31 GENERAL PRINCIPLES 32 WHO IS THE REASONABLE MAN? 33 WHAT IS A REASONABLE STANDARD OF CARE? 34 THE MAGNITUDE OF THE RISK 35 THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE POTENTIAL HARM 36 THE COST OF ELIMINATING THE RISK 37 COMMON PRACTICE 38 THE SOCIAL VALUE OF THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT: Emergency Vehicles 39 OTHER SITUATIONS OF SOCIAL VALUE 40 GENERAL KNOWLEDGE AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT 41 THE UNSKILLED DEFENDANT 42 ATTENDANCE AT DANGEROUS EVENTS: The Sports Cases 43 THE CHILD DEFENDANT 44 RES IPSA LOQUITUR PART 7: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE: Duty of Care 45 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROFESSIONAL DUTY OF CARE 46 THE BRISTOL ROYAL INFIRMARY HEART SCANDAL 47 THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE: Informed Consent PART 8: PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE: Breach of Duty 48 INTRODUCTION 49 THE BOLAM TEST 50 THE STANDARD OF CARE UNDER BOLAM 51 THE BOLAM TEST AND OTHER PROFESSIONS 52 THE TEST OF REASONABLE CARE UNDER BOLAM 53 CONFLICTING PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 54 THE BOLITHO REFINEMENT © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 3 55 LIMITS OF CONTRACTUAL NEGLIGENCE PART 9: CAUSATION IN FACT 56 INTRODUCTION 57 THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY 58 CAUSATION IN FACT: The But-For Test 59 CAUSATION IN FACT: Unfortunate Coincidences 60 CAUSATION IN FACT: Proving Causation 61 CAUSATION IN FACT: Significant Increase in Risk 62 CAUSATION IN FACT: Non-Disclosure of Risk 63 CAUSATION IN FACT: Loss of Chance 64 CAUSATION IN FACT: Professional Negligence 65 CAUSATION IN FACT: Cumulative Causes 66 CAUSATION IN FACT: Consecutive Causes PART 10: CAUSATION IN LAW: Remoteness 67 INTRODUCTION 68 EXCESSIVE INJURIES 69 INJURIES OF AN UNFORESEEN TYPE 70 NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS: Introduction 71 NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS: Acts of the Claimant 72 NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS: Acts of Nature 73 NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS: Acts of a Third Party TUTORIAL QUESTIONS © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 4 PART 1: INTRODUCTION TO TORT 1 DICTIONARY DEFINITION 1.1 tort n. Law a breach of duty (other than under a contract) leading to liability for damages. [Middle English via Old French from medieval Latin tortum ‘wrong’, neut. past part. of Latin torquere tort – ‘twist’] Oxford English Dictionary 2 TYPES OF TORT 2.1 The law of tort is concerned with obligations arising under civil law, other than by contractual agreement or the law of trusts. Unlike contractual obligations, most tortious obligations are negative – i.e. things you must NOT do unless you wish to be sued for a remedy. 2.2 Although the law of tort covers a great many unsociable activities, there remain many indiscretions which are not recognised as torts. Thus whilst people who shout into mobile phones on the train, rustle sweet wrappers at the theatre or try to beat toddlers at Snakes and Ladders are certainly annoying, such bad manners do not make them ‘tortfeasors’. Such things are said to be "damnum absque injuria": injuries which does not give rise to legal rights. 2.3 D v. East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373 (HL) “The world is full of harm for which the law furnishes no remedy. For instance, a trader owes no duty of care to avoid injuring his rivals by destroying their long-established businesses. If he does so and, as a result, one of his competitors descends into a clinical depression and his family are reduced to penury, in the eyes of the law they suffer no wrong and the law will provide no redress – because competition is regarded as operating to the overall good of the economy and society. A young man whose fiancée deserts him for his best friend may become clinically depressed as a result, but in the circumstances the fiancée owes him no duty of care to avoid causing this suffering. So he too will have no right to damages for his illness. The same goes for a middle-aged woman whose husband runs off with a younger woman. Experience suggests that such intimate matters are best left to the individuals themselves. However badly one of them may have treated the other, the law does not get involved in awarding damages.” per Lord Rodger at para 10 2.4 On the other hand, wise people should not engage in the following activities… NEGLIGENCE: By far the most common tort, the ambit of legal negligence is strictly controlled by the courts. Mere careless behaviour will not do. There must be a breach of a recognized duty of care which has caused foreseeable loss or damage, and even all that might not be enough to ensure a successful claim. Most of this manual is involved in discussing the intricacies of this complex tort. OCCUPIERS’ LIABILITY: Occupiers of premises owe a special duty in addition to normal ‘negligence’ to consider the safety of those who enter those premises. Originally entirely a common law matter, predating even the modern tort of negligence, Occupiers’ Liability is now governed by two statutes, imaginatively titled the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. PRIVATE NUISANCE: It is a tort unreasonably to interfere with people’s enjoyment of their land. Smoke, noise, vibrations – even perambulating prostitutes – may be targeted here, but only a person with an interest in the land may bring the action. RYLANDS v. FLETCHER: A rather clumsy name for a largely defunct tort, this is akin to private nuisance. It involves bringing something onto your land which is not naturally there and which may cause injury to your neighbour if it escapes. If it does escape and causes injury – oh dear! Originally applied to a leaking reservoir, it has been known to cover fumes, electricity and even chairs from a fairground ride! © A. Barrie Goldstone 2020: page 5 TRESPASS: A direct, unlawful and intentional interference with someone’s property or person. Trespass to land is the most common form of this, but the tort extends to touching people without their consent (battery); threatening immediate battery (assault); preventing people from exercising their freedom of movement (false imprisonment); and generally interfering with their stuff. Unlike negligence, trespass is actionable without proof of any consequent injury – i.e. actionable per se. DEFAMATION: A tort for the very rich who want to be even richer (but may end up destitute and/or in prison) this involves the publication of an untrue statement which lowers the victim’s reputation in the estimation of right-thinking members of society and causes the victim serious harm. Shout it in the street and it is slander; write it on the wall and it is libel. PASSING OFF: This is a commercial tort by which one business concern misrepresents itself as being part of, or associated with, another business, and thereby benefits unfairly from the goodwill established by that other business. 3 THE FUNCTION OF THE LAW OF TORT 3.1 There has been much academic and political debate about the function of the tort system. 3.2 As an individual deterrent it arguably has little effect as most torts involve accidents, and people will generally try to avoid accidents whether or not a lawsuit might result. That said, a reputation for committing torts, especially negligence, will not help the members of a professional practice, who might therefore take elaborate steps to avoid it. Also, publishers will try to avoid publishing libel for fear of the excessive damages that could result. 3.3 The immediate interest of the claimants in a tort action is usually to get the activity stopped and/or to claim damages. Where nuisance or trespass is concerned an injunction can be effective, but it is not automatically awarded as the courts consider the wider public interest in preventing an activity, and the tort system may in that respect entirely fail the claimant. 3.4 As far as compensation is concerned, it is clear that many cases are in fact covered by insurance, and insurance companies will fight to avoid paying out on claims to the extent that many claimants are coaxed into accepting inadequate damages or even to give up the claim entirely to avoid the trauma and time of an uncertain hearing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Update on Breach of Duty of Care at Common Law in the Post-Enterprise Act Era
    A fine line between genius and insanity An update on breach of duty of care at common law in the post-Enterprise Act era Steve Laing, Advocate & Gavin Thornley, Advocate 1. Breach of duty of care prior to treatment in medical negligence cases Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 • Claimant suffered a head injury • Attended A&E Department - busy night • Receptionist told him he’d be seen in 4-5 hours (average waiting time for treatment) • Should have told him that triage nurse would see him within 30 minutes Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 Left hospital after 19 minutes without treatment and without telling any member of staff Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 • Had he realised that he would be seen by a triage nurse, he would have stayed • Condition deteriorated at home • Suffered a left hemiplegia, with long term problems • Would have been prevented had he received prompt treatment Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 • Left after 19 minutes • Clinical guidelines - head injury patient should be assessed by a clinician within 15 minutes of arrival • Experts accepted that 30 minutes would also be appropriate on busy night • Court of Appeal held that no breach of duty of care by failure to examine him within 15 or 19 minutes on a busy night in A&E when his presentation on arrival didn’t merit priority triage Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust 2017 EWCA Civ 151 Advanced a case - breach of duty as failure of A&E receptionist
    [Show full text]
  • The Overlapping of Legal Concepts a Legal Realist Approach to the Classification of Private Law
    THE OVERLAPPING OF LEGAL CONCEPTS A LEGAL REALIST APPROACH TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW by DAVID SALMONS A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Birmingham Law School College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham Summer 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The main aim of this research is two-fold; firstly, these chapters will seek to demonstrate the unreliability of theoretical or abstract approaches to legal reasoning in describing the law. Secondly, rather than merely providing a deconstruction of previous attempts to classify private law, the chapters attempt to construct an overlapping approach to classification. This represents a new way of classifying private law, which builds on the foundations of the lessons of legal realism and explains how classification can accommodate overlaps to assist in identifying the core elements of private law reasoning. Following the realist tradition, the thesis argues for narrower formulations of the concepts of property, contract and tort. It is then argued that within these narrower concepts, the law is made more predictable and clearer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Spill in the Gulf . . . and a Sea of Pure Economic Loss: Reflections on the Boundaries of Civil Liability
    The Great Spill in the Gulf . and a Sea of Pure Economic Loss: Reflections on the Boundaries of Civil Liability Vernon Valentine Palmer1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Event and Aftermath What has been called the greatest oil spill in history, and certainly the largest in United States history, began with an explosion on April 20, 2010, some 41 miles off the Louisiana coast. The accident occurred during the drilling of an exploratory well by the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU) under lease to BP (formerly British Petroleum) and owned by Transocean.2 The well-head blowout resulted in 11 dead, 17 injured, and oil spewing from the seabed 5,000 ft. below at an estimated rate of 25,000-30,000 barrels per day.3 The Deepwater Horizon is technically described as “a massive floating, dynamically positioned drilling rig” capable of operating in waters 8,000 ft. deep.4 In maritime law, such a rig qualifies as a vessel; yet, as a MODU, the rig also qualifies as an offshore facility that may attract higher liability limits under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).5 Under these provisions the double designation as vessel and/or MODU 1. Thomas Pickles Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Eason Weinmann Center for Comparative Law, Tulane University. This paper was presented in October 2010 in Hong Kong at a conference convened under the auspices of the Centre for Chinese and Comparative Law of the City University of Hong Kong. The conference theme was “Towards a Chinese Civil Code: Historical and Comparative Perspectives.” The conference papers will be published in a forthcoming volume edited by Professors Chen Lei and Remco van Rhee.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limits and Potential of Tort Liability for Energy Efficiency Problems in Domestic Buildings
    BUILDING DISAPPOINTMENT: THE LIMITS AND POTENTIAL OF TORT LIABILITY FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROBLEMS IN DOMESTIC BUILDINGS by Kim Alexandra Bouwer A thesis submitted to University College London for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2016 UCL I, Kim Alexandra Bouwer confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. -------------------------------------------------- Kim A Bouwer 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………….……..6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………….……..8 ACRONYMS…………………....………………………………………….……..11 Chapter One: Introduction a) Thesis and chapter outline………………………………………….…...12 b) The governance of climate change………………………………..……16 c) Climate change litigation across scales………………………….….....23 d) Energy, energy efficiency and the built environment…………….…...31 e) Scope of the thesis, methodology and structure…………………...….35 i. Scope…………………………………………………………...….35 ii. Methodology…………………………………………………...….42 a. First phase……………………………………………………...46 b. Second phase………………………………………………….47 c. Third phase……………………………………………………..49 iii. Thesis Structure…………………………………………………..49 PART 1 Chapter Two: Decarbonising the Built Environment a) Introduction………………………………………………………………..52 b) How we make buildings energy efficient……………………………….53 i. Achieving energy performance………………………………….53 ii. How we measure energy efficiency…………………………….56 c) The performance gap…………………………………………………….61 d) Unintended consequences: overheating……………………………….68
    [Show full text]
  • Reflexions on the Law of Illegality
    REFLEXIONS ON THE LAW OF ILLEGALITY In the last three years of my time in practice, I was much exposed to the question of the proper scope of the illegality defence in English law, as a result of two cases which I argued as Counsel: Stone & Rolls v. Moore Stephens1, a victory which earned me the undying resentment of company lawyers, and Safeway v. Twigger2, another case in which the defence was upheld to the horror of all sound competition lawyers. I happen to think that the result was right in both cases, but I am not to be blamed for either of them, for the law of illegality is an area is which there are few propositions, however contradictory or counter-intuitive, that cannot be supported by respectable authorities at the highest levels. For as long as I can remember, the English courts have been endeavouring to rationalise it. The proposition itself is straightforward enough. Ex turpi causa oritur non actio. Like many of the Latin phrases which we are now discouraged from using, this one is useful in cramming the maximum of meaning into the minimum of words. But like other apparently straightforward propositions of law, it begs many more questions than it answers. What is turpitude? What sort connection with it will bar the enforcement of a legal obligation? And with what consequences? The answers to these questions are to be found in two centuries of English case-law, which the Law Commission characterised a decade ago as complex, uncertain and unjust, but which it has recently proposed to leave more or less intact.
    [Show full text]
  • TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF Summer 1994 July 8, 1994 MID-TERM SAMPLE ANSWER
    TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF Summer 1994 July 8, 1994 MID-TERM SAMPLE ANSWER QUESTION 1 I would consider claims against Larry Lacopo ("LL") and the Azure Shores Country Club. To establish liability, it would need to be proven that one of the parties breached a duty to Jason, either by being negligent or engaging in an activity for which strict liability is imposed, and that such a breach of duty was a proximate cause of injuries to him. Lacopo's Potential Liability We would argue that LL was negligent in striking the ball so hard without shouting "Fore!" To establish negligence, we would have to persuade the jury that a reasonably prudent person in the same or similar circumstances would have behaved differently. Perhaps reasonable golfers are aware of the need to avoid shots like the one that LL made; on the other hand, perhaps LL could convince the jury that he reasonably believed that the golf course had been designed so that shots would not pose a danger to anyone else. If the jury found LL negligent in hitting the ball so hard without having the skill to control it, then it would be easy to establish proximate cause. On the other hand, if the jury found that he should have shouted "Fore!" then it would still need to be shown that that failure was a proximate cause of injury. A jury would have to find that, more probably than not, the injury would not have occurred but for LL's negligence. Perhaps Jason or his grandfather would testify that, had someone shouted "Fore!" they would have at least kept an eye out for stray balls.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Tort Law, Fourth Edition
    PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW Fourth Edition CP Cavendish Publishing Limited London • Sydney EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD PRINCIPLES OF LAW SERIES PROFESSOR PAUL DOBSON Visiting Professor at Anglia Polytechnic University PROFESSOR NIGEL GRAVELLS Professor of English Law, Nottingham University PROFESSOR PHILLIP KENNY Professor and Head of the Law School, Northumbria University PROFESSOR RICHARD KIDNER Professor at the Law Department, University of Wales, Aberystwyth In order to ensure that the material presented by each title maintains the necessary balance between thoroughness in content and accessibility in arrangement, each title in the series has been read and approved by an independent specialist under the aegis of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Board oversees the development of the series as a whole, ensuring a conformity in all these vital aspects. PRINCIPLES OF TORT LAW Fourth Edition Vivienne Harpwood, LLB, Barrister Reader in Law, Cardiff Law School CCPP Cavendish PublishingCavendish PublishingLimited Limited London • Sydney Fourth edition first published in Great Britain 2000 by Cavendish Publishing Limited, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom. Telephone: +44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: +44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.cavendishpublishing.com © Harpwood, V2000 First edition 1993 Second edition 1996 Third edition 1997 Fourth edition 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, except under the terms of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or under the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE, UK, without the permission in writing of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Darnley V Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50
    This is a repository copy of The Impatient Patient and the Unreceptive Receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/141880/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Purshouse, C (2018) The Impatient Patient and the Unreceptive Receptionist: Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust [2018] UKSC 50. Medical Law Review. ISSN 1464- 3790 https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwy042 © The Author(s) 2018. This is an author produced version of a paper published in Medical Law Review. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ THE IMPATIENT PATIENT AND THE UNRECEPTIVE RECEPTIONIST: DARNLEY v CROYDON HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST [2018] UKSC 50. Craig Purshouse, School of Law, University of Leeds, Liberty Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT. [email protected] I would like to thank Emma Cave, Sarah Devaney and Rob Heywood for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
    [Show full text]
  • Appellants) V the Chief Constable of South Wales Police and Another (Respondents
    Hilary Term [2015] UKSC 2 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 981 JUDGMENT Michael and others (FC) (Appellants) v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another (Respondents) before Lord Neuberger, President Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Mance Lord Kerr Lord Reed Lord Toulson Lord Hodge JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 28 January 2015 Heard on 28 and 29 July 2014 Appellants Respondents Nicholas Bowen QC Lord Pannick QC Duncan Fairgrieve Jeremy Johnson QC Jude Bunting (Instructed by Martyn (Instructed by South Prowel Solicitors) Wales and Gwent Police Joint Legal Services) Interveners Interveners (1) Refuge Karon Monaghan QC (2) Liberty Rajeev Thacker (Instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn Solicitors) Intervener Intervener Cymorth i Ferched Cymru Caoilfhionn Gallagher (Welsh Women’s Aid) Conor McCarthy (Instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors) LORD TOULSON: (with whom Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Hodge agree) Introduction 1. This appeal arises from the tragic murder of Joanna Michael by a former partner, which might have been prevented if the police had responded promptly to a 999 call made by Ms Michael. As I explain below, two police forces were involved, Gwent Police and South Wales Police, and there was a lack of effective liaison between them. 2. The claimants in the action are Ms Michael’s parents and her two young children. The defendants are the Chief Constables of Gwent Police and the South Wales Police. The claim is brought for damages for negligence at common law and under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 and Law Reform Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1934 (which I will refer to as the common law or negligence claim), and for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of the defendants’ duties as public authorities to protect Ms Michael’s right to life under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which I will refer to as the human rights or article 2 claim).
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law - the Doctrine of Independent Intervening Cause Does Not Apply in Cases of Multiple Acts of Negligence - Torres V
    Volume 30 Issue 2 Summer 2000 Summer 2002 Tort Law - The Doctrine of Independent Intervening Cause Does Not Apply in Cases of Multiple Acts of Negligence - Torres v. El Paso Electric Company Cynthia Loehr Recommended Citation Cynthia Loehr, Tort Law - The Doctrine of Independent Intervening Cause Does Not Apply in Cases of Multiple Acts of Negligence - Torres v. El Paso Electric Company, 30 N.M. L. Rev. 325 (2002). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol30/iss2/8 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr TORT LAW-The Doctrine of Independent Intervening Cause Does Not Apply in Cases of Multiple Acts of Negligence-Torres v. El Paso Electric Company I. INTRODUCTION In Torres v. El Paso Electric Company,' the New Mexico Supreme Court abolished the doctrine of independent intervening cause for multiple acts of negligence, including where a defendant and a plaintiff are both negligent.2 An independent intervening cause is "a cause which interrupts the natural sequence of events, turns aside their cause, prevents the natural and probable results of the original act or omission, and produces a different result, that could not have been reasonably foreseen."3 The Torrescourt concluded that the independent intervening cause instruction would "unduly emphasize" a defendant's attempts to shift fault and was "sufficiently repetitive" of that for proximate cause that
    [Show full text]
  • Liability Issues with Artificial Intelligence in the National and International Context
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UTUPub Liability issues with Artificial Intelligence in the national and international context Ville Rautanen Master’s Thesis International Law University of Turku Faculty of Law June 2020 The originality of this thesis has been checked in accordance with the University of Turku quality assurance system using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service. UNIVERSITY OF TURKU Faculty of Law RAUTANEN VILLE: Liability issues with Artificial Intelligence in the national and international context Pro gradu -thesis, 90 p. International Law June 2020 The originality of this thesis has been checked in accordance with the University of Turku quality assurance system using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The pro gradu -thesis discusses the liability issues regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, especially liability of robots and other autonomous machines, and it provides an answer to the question “Who is liable when AI makes a mistake?” This problem is looked first from the national and more individual perspective and then from an international perspective regarding the state’s responsibility and jurisdiction. The main issue can is that if, for example, a self-driving car collides with another vehicle, who then can be held liable as instead of a human, the car was driven by an algorithm. As there is no human driver, the responsible party needs to be found somewhere else, and it could be the owner or the manufacturer of the car, the software designer or at some point maybe even the AI itself. Also, no one can be blamed without reasons or applicable law, so there is a need for suitable reasoning to hold the party liable, and the legislations need to be updated to recognise the liable party regarding the new technology.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Print Version
    HOUSE OF LORDS SESSION 2007–08 [2008] UKHL 13 on appeal from: [2007] EWCA Civ 601 OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) (Respondent) v IBC Vehicles Limited (Appellants) Appellate Committee Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Lord Mance Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury Counsel Appellants: Respondents: Jeremy Cousins QC John Foy QC John Brennan Andrew Ritchie Justin Kitson Robert McAllister (Instructed by Moran & Co) (Instructed by Rowley Ashworth) Hearing date: 3-5 DECEMBER 2007 ON WEDNESDAY 27 FEBRUARY 2008 HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Corr (administratix of the estate of Thomas Corr (deceased)) (Respondent) v IBC Vehicles Limited (Appellants) [2008] UKHL 13 LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. The issue in this appeal is whether loss attributable to the death by suicide of the late Mr Thomas Corr is recoverable by his dependent widow under section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 in this action against his former employer. 2. Mr Corr was employed as a maintenance engineer by the appellant company (“the employer”), a manufacturer of light commercial vehicles. On 22 June 1996, then aged almost 31, he was working on a prototype line of presses which produced panels for Vauxhall vehicles. He was working, with another, to remedy a fault on an automated arm with a sucker for lifting panels. The machine picked up a metal panel from the press, without warning, and moved it forcibly in Mr Corr’s direction.
    [Show full text]