- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
- Posts
Hi Mike
I hope you are well. In the tort lecture you mention that Glasgow were not liable but I had a look online and it says they were. Could you please clarify if this is right or wrong, and correct the lecture please if possible ? I use this site quite a lot and would like to know everything on here is correct !
I don’t remember ever using Taylor v Glasgow in lectures! Can you please give me the time on the recorded lecture where I mention this case?
Thanks
Mike
Hi It is on the lecture on Tort. The time on the recorded lecture is from 24 minutes and 17 seconds. On this article, it says that Glasgow was liable !
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/glasgow-corporation-v-taylor.php
Thanks for the reply Mike. Just wanted to let you know 🙂
Many thanks
Arahn
Hi and thanks for this … and apologies for the error! You are correct, Glasgow Corporation was negligent and the lecture suggests differently
The point remains though (in my uneducated non-legally-trained opinion) it would be unreasonable for Glasgow to have taken further action. Perhaps the sensible thing for the Corporation to have done (with the benefit of hindsight) is not to have planted the poison-berry bushes in the first place!
It’s admittedly an unfortunate error on my part but it’s unlikely to cost you success in the law exam and I’m not aware of any other errors neither in the notes nor in the lectures so, be brave, have faith and let me know when you have passed this paper 🙂
Thank you very much Mike. I will let you know my result. I am taking the exam at the end of December many thanks for your reply.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.