Law 2101 Lecture Notes - Lecture 16: Blackletter
3 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Standard of care
-Facts to consider
-Forseeabliltu of Harm (fardon v harcourt)
-IF can foresee someone getting injured
-Fardon
-Chihuahua in car, leave dog in car and windows down
-Man walking by
-Dog jumps through front windshield and gets glass in passervys eye
-Cannot foresee this so cannot claim
-Probability and severity of the harm
-Social utility
-Costs of risk avoidance
-Custom
-Difficult situations
-Bolton v Stone
-6 homeruns in 30 years at baseball diamond
-Old lady walking by stadium and home run and ball hits her in the face
-Was playing in these conditions even though there is wall nelignet?
-High court says it was not nelignemt since risk of hitting one was so small, risk was
unforseeable.
-Blackletter law
-Reasonable people do not create foreseeable injuries but they weigh the risks
when taking actions
-IN this case risk was low
-Court said that if evidence was 6 balls a year instead of 6 over 30, then it would
have been negligent
-Same with if it was busy street etc.
-Cost od precautions
-Wagon mound
-Almost empty of fuel and doesn't tighten fitting tight enough and oil is leaking into
harbour
-Oil covers all of harbour
-Oil they have is difficult to burn
-For strange events, someone is welding and molten metal lights shirt that lights log that
lights all of harbour
-Court found the person liable even though small risk
-Since reasonable person would have not taken the risk and told them to stop so he
could fix the fitting
-Cost of precautions is a way to be found liable for standards of care
-Law of Estate
-
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Chihuahua in car, leave dog in car and windows down. Dog jumps through front windshield and gets glass in passervys eye. 6 homeruns in 30 years at baseball diamond. Old lady walking by stadium and home run and ball hits her in the face. High court says it was not nelignemt since risk of hitting one was so small, risk was unforseeable. Reasonable people do not create foreseeable injuries but they weigh the risks when taking actions. Court said that if evidence was 6 balls a year instead of 6 over 30, then it would have been negligent. Same with if it was busy street etc. Almost empty of fuel and doesn"t tighten tting tight enough and oil is leaking into harbour. Oil they have is dif cult to burn. For strange events, someone is welding and molten metal lights shirt that lights log that lights all of harbour. Court found the person liable even though small risk.
