- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
”the courts must be able to establish a legal liability as a result of damage”. what does this mean sir?
In case of Donoghue v Stevenson what is legal liability here ?
”the courts must be able to establish a legal liability as a result of damage” – depending on the context, I imagine that this is referring to the neighbourhood concept
We’re all liable to our legal neighbours but we’re not liable to those people that are not our legal neighbours
Donoghue v Stevenson? The question is, “Is the drinks company a legal neighbour of the young lady that drinks the soft drink”
Legal liability was established by accepting that a manufacturer has a responsibility to look after the people that buy the products of the manufacturer, even though the identity of those people is never known to the manufacturer
Does that do it for you?
Hi, I have a question related to Mock exam question related to torts:
Is this true or false:
“In the situation where the Court establishes that a plaintiff has contributed by their own actions to the damage that they have suffered, it is possible for the Court to reduce the extent of the award of damages by 100%”?As far as I understand, it is true; however, the test says its false.
Extract from study text book:
If the defendant proves that the claimant was at least partially at fault, courts will reduce the damages awarded to them by a percentage that is just and reasonable. This percentage is calculated according to what is established as the claimant’s share of the blame. This is typically in the range of 10% to 75%, however it is possible to reduce the claim by up to 100%.I looked long and hard at this question when I was writing them
There appears to be dispute (I nearly excluded if from the tests!) in high places as to whether you could have 100% reduction and the matter does not appear as yet to be settled in the courts
I doubt whether the F4 examiner will ask the question so long as the ground upon which we walk is muddied by conflicting non-binding previous decisions
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.