Study Guides (248,590)
Canada (121,622)
Philosophy (375)

Case.docx

4 Pages
122 Views

Department
Philosophy
Course Code
Philosophy 2080
Professor
James Hildebrand

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.
Description
CaseSummaryFirst Trial First Appeal Second Appeal Dissent Stevenson v Snail in drink DefendantPlaintiff Donaghue No duty of care owed Duty of care owed Objective reasonable person standardforeseeable plaintiff Manufacturer owes duty to consumer Palsgraf v Explosive Plaintiff PlaintiffDefendant Defendant should accept Long Island package all consequences Duty of care owed Duty of care owed No duty of care owed Railway Object to proximity cause Objective reasonable person standard Corporation for liabilitynot foreseeable plaintiff Bourhill v Pregnant DefendantYoung nervous No duty of care owed shockstillObjective reasonable bornperson standardnot foreseeable plaintiffOke v Wade Gravel Plaintiff Defendant Not necessary to foresee Transportmedian precise nature of accident Defendant was negligent No duty of care owed Carra in order to find liabilityin not removing or Objective reasonable person When defendant cleaned reporting the damaged standardnot foreseeable up debrisasked sign plaintiff attendant about reporting indicates he did foresee potential dangerMoule v New Trimmed Plaintiff Defendant Defendant Brunswick treesDuty of care owed No duty of care owed No duty of care owed Electric Power Objective reasonable Objective reasonable person Objective reasonable person standard Commission person standardstandardnot foreseeablenot foreseeable plaintiffforeseeable plaintiff plaintiffNecessary precautions were taken Amos v New Trees Plaintiff Defendant Plaintiff Brunswick Duty of care owed No duty of care owed Duty of care owed Electric Power Objective reasonable Objective reasonable person Objective reasonable person standard Commissionperson standardstandardnot foreseeableforeseeable plaintiffforeseeable plaintiff plaintiffNo precautions taken Bound by Moule case Bolton v Stone Cricket club DefendantPlaintiff Defendant Duty of care owed The 4 factor test in case results in a Objective reasonable person finding that the defendant did not standardforeseeable breach reasonable standard of care plaintiff Paris v One good eye Plaintiff Defendants Plaintiff Stepney The 4 factor test in this case results in Borougha finding that the defendant did
More Less
Unlock Document

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit