- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
-Sir, in McKew v Holland (1969) – the defendant was not liable for the injuries resulting from the
incident on the stairs.
-Sir here because of the act of the victim defendant was not liable for the INCREASED loss, however, he was liable for the ORIGINAL loss na?-In Lamb v Camden LBC (1981),
-defendant was not liable for the acts of the squatters
– Sir here because of the act of the 3rd party defendant was not liable for the INCREASED loss, however, he was liable for the ORIGINAL loss na?-In Carslogie Steamship Co Limited v Royal Norwegian Government(1952),
-defendant was not liable for the time it would
have taken to repair the ship in respect of the collision damage
-Sir here because of the natural disaster the chain of causation was broken, BUT here apart from the INCREASED loss, defendant was NOT liable even for the ORIGINAL loss. Why is that so?– Sir in Carslogie Steamship Co Limited v Royal Norwegian Government (Natural event)
(1952) it was HELD that the claimant could not recover compensation for the time it would
have taken to repair the ship in respect of the collision damage, as
the ship would have been out of use in any case, due to the damage
caused by the weather.– In Lamb v Camden LBC (1981) (Act of 3rd party)
it was HELD that the local authority was not liable for the acts of the squatters.– In McKew v Holland (1969) (Act of claimant)
it was HELD that the claimant’s action amounted to a novus actus interveniens
because his action in attempting to climb the steps unaided,
knowing that his leg might give way, was unreasonable. The
defendant was therefore not liable for the injuries resulting from the
incident on the stairs.Sir I was of the view that if because of the ACT OF 3RD PARTY/ ACT OF CLAIMANT/ NATURAL EVENT , LOSS IS INCREASED THEN DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE FOR ONLY THAT INCREASED LOSS, HOWEVER, HE IS LIABLE FOR THE LOSS CAUSED BEFORE INTERVENTION OF 3RD PARTY/CLAIMANT/NATURAL EVENT.
SIR IS THIS MY VIEW RIGHT OR WRONG REGARDING ACT OF 3RD PARTY/ ACT OF CLAIMANT/ NATURAL EVENT. IF I AM WRONG SOMEWHERE THEN PLEASE RECTIFY ME
- The topic ‘cases – Novus’ is closed to new replies.