Lookin'LikeTrash
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
I'm currently writing a breach of duty problem question, the case has been through the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal and I have to write a judgement as a justice of the Supreme Court. The notes say that we should about breach of duty of care in the tort of negligence. Does this mean I should rely on the assumption that duty of care and causation has been determined in the previous courts, or should I be analysing these and deciding if there is a duty of care and whether causation is can be linked to the defendant's negligence?
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Well if there is no duty of care, there can be no breach of it, so you need to be able to argue that a duty of care existed, that duty was breached, there was sufficient causation, that there was 'proximity' - all the usual things.
0
reply
Lookin'LikeTrash
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
Yes, you're right. That makes sense. Thanks for your reply. Appreciate it.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made your mind up on your five uni choices?

Yes, and I've sent off my application! (286)
57.78%
I've made my choices but havent sent my application yet (68)
13.74%
I've got a good idea about the choices I want to make (53)
10.71%
I'm researching but still not sure which universities I want to apply to (42)
8.48%
I haven't started researching yet (26)
5.25%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (20)
4.04%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise