- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- Posts
Sir we know 3 stage test i.e a person owes duty of care
a) if sufficient proximity or relation exist ( neighbor)
b) loss is foreseeable
c) it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of careSir in bourhill v young 1943 case,
1) wasn’t pregnant woman neighbor of motorcyclist?
2) wasn’t it foreseeable that any pedestrian would pass from the accident spot?Please answer part 1 and part 2 separately
A legal neighbour is a person that is so directly affected by your acts that you should have them in mind as likely to be affected when you commit those acts
How could the motorcyclist possibly have foreseen that a pregnant lady would have a miscarriage when she saw the remains of the motorcyclist – he couldn’t even foresee the bus that he hit!
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
- The topic ‘Tort – duty of care’ is closed to new replies.