James Atkin

2. Sunil was injured when he slipped on the wet floor of the Xerox Supermarket. It had been a rainy day and persons entering the store had made the floor wet? Explain the possible liability of Xerox Supermarket. In spite of the development of Internet shopping, the circumstance where clients visit retail premises to make their buys is still all that much the standard. Retailers, huge and little, depend on the physical vicinity of customers in shops for the greater part of their common exchanges

Delving into the Trinity Grammar haircut saga, during the crisis phase, there are several concerns which enraged the stakeholders, namely the School Council’s decision to sack Brown, its passive attitude, and empty promises. While the trigger event was unstable, the suddenness and negativity impacted attribution. Using the three attribution dimension, the Trinity Grammar haircut saga dons a high personal control, low external control, and a locus in the actor which could strengthen the perception

Why is the speech of Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] All ER1; [1935] AC 462; (1935) 25 Cr App R 72, important?" This essay will explore (Woolmington 1935) and develop an understanding as to why (Fosters Crown Law 1762), (Sankey’s golden thread speech 1935) and the exceptions played a significant importance in the case of Woolmington v DPP. In the case of Woolmington he had shot his wife, Violet who had left him to go and live with her mother, Woolmington claimed he accidentally shot

society thinks of a neighbor as someone they just live next to, they don’t take the time to talk to the people they live around. In 2007 James VanIveren suspected that one of his neighbors was raping a women and in attempt to help her he grabbed a sword and charged into the man’s apartment just to find out his neighbor was watching an adult film. In this case if James had known his neighbor he could have knocked on the door and asked whether or not something was wrong or known him well enough to know

Duty of care Issue: Does defendant (David or the Bright Smiles Dental Surgery) owned duty of care to plaintiff (Tony)? Rules: * The neighbour principle: In Donoghue v Stevenson1, Lord Atkin concluded that we all owe a duty of care to our “neighbors”, meaning those persons who we should have in mind when we are contemplating actions that we take as we go about our business and private lives. * Neighbour Defined: “My neighbors are persons who are so closely and directly affected by

Within a week of my birth, my parents sent me to a myopically conservative ship community to prevent exposure of liberalism to me. Unfortunately, I felt nothing but alienation due to my inability to relate with my peers, but relocation was unattainable. My deep desperation to escape my world of torture caused the onset of night-terrors. Because of the potential violent qualities of night-terrors, I decided to keep a journal to provide future references and to monitor my psychological changes. At

This essay is based on the subject of whether or not a duty of care, in terms of psychiatric harm can be established through an individual or individuals being negligent. The defendant’s negligence is either due to almost injuring the claimant, who then suffers from psychiatric harm, or killing or badly injuring a victim causing the claimant to suffer from psychiatric harm. Psychiatric harm can be defined as an assault on a person’s senses or mind rather than actual physical contact. It has to be

Mrs. Donoghue sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer who have, through neglect, allowed the snail to get inside the bottle. When the case reached the House of Lords, court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to their consumers. Lord Atkin gave narrow ratio reasoning on why the duty of care existed in manufacturer- consumer

twenty first century. The stance now taken upon an action for negligence is that it must be established that a duty of care is owed by the defender to the pursuer in order for liability to arise. This came about following the decision made by Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, and has been further developed in a number of other common law examples. Prior to this revolutionary judgement, there was a quantitative restriction as to where a duty of care would arise, primarily only in relationships

beyond the doctrine of privity and sue even if not a direct party to a contract. Prior to this, “fraudulent misstatement” or similar would have been required as a material fact when using the “…often quoted and variously explained” case as Lord Atkin stated when referring to the comments of Parke B . The Donoghue v Stevenson decision has been mostly