Download file to see previous pages...
It was argued by Gray that he had been beset by these ills, as a consequence of the post traumatic stress disorder engendered by the negligence of the defendants2.
Gray’s claim was that in the absence of the defendants’ tort, he would not have been deprived of his earnings. Therefore, he contended that he had been put to a loss. Moreover, Gray claimed damages for the loss of earnings, prior to and subsequent to his killing of the pedestrian3.
The legal doctrine of ex turpi causa oritur actio implies that an illegal or immoral act cannot constitute the basis for a cause of action4. The courts are required to adopt a non rigid stance, whilst effecting the doctrine of ex turpi causa oritur action. As such, it is essential for the court to apply the test of public conscience. Hence, it should arrive at a judicious balance between the negative outcomes of granting relief against those arising from the refusal to grant relief5.
In Gray v Thames Trains Ltd, Lord Hoffmann stated that the maxim ex turpi causa was more of a policy than a principle. Moreover, such policy depends on a combination of several factors; which could vary, in accordance with the situation obtaining, in a specific instance6. Therefore, the court does not encourage a plaintiff to recover some benefit out of his own illegal act.
Gray’s capacity to earn had been rescinded, due to the imposition of the hospital orders. The House of Lords, opined that the award of damages to the claimant, in respect of the loss of earnings, for the period, during which, the latter had been subjected to the orders of the civil court; would be at variance with the policy, on which these orders had been made7. In this case the House of Lords analysed the issues relating to causation and public policy, with regard to psychiatric illness.
Lord Phillips had opined that
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
In discussing duty of care as a legal concept, Lord Atkin established the “neighbour” principle, which were defined as “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought to reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question.” The Atkin “neighbour principle” paradigm was criticised for being too wide and risking floodgate claims through making it easy for legal practitioners to successfully argue negligence (Horsey & Rackley, 2009).
This paper tends to evaluate some various opinions on this issue; and finally makes a better conclusion of its own. To begin with, the bill according to critics like Lisa Rickard, the president of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform would only help plaintiff’s lawyers to opt-out the programs they do not like.
The researcher of the essay states that under the tort law, if anyone suffers a legal, economical or physical harm, she or he may be entitled to file a suit which when considered to be valid. Issues of nuisance, the issues arising in form of liability in the tort of negligence and causation are mentioned in the essay.
In other terms, tort refers to a collection of rights, responsibilities and remedies applicable in the justice system, more so in civil lawsuits to compensate and relieve those affected or harmed by the wrongful actions or omissions by others1. Those who sustain injuries or losses due to tortious conducts are referred to as plaintiffs while those responsible for the injuries and are liable for the damages are referred to as defendants or tortfeasors2.
Discrimination In accordance with UK law, which came into being on 1st October 2006, no employer can turn down the request of an employee on the basis of age; neither passes insulting remarks against the employee as we have seen in the case of William. To curb this practice, the government introduced 65 years as retiring age.
His leg was also amputated because of frostbite. The plaintiff has attributed his sufferings and amputation of legs to the negligence of coastguard due to lack of appropriate, fast and rapid action taken by them.
The High Court of Justiceheard the case of Mr.
ed, Betty Bloke will necessarily have to determine whether or not Ruff, Right and Shoddy were negligent and whether or not they each owed each Betty a duty of care. Negligence depends entirely on whether or not the companies were in breach of that duty of care. Once negligence
This could either be directly, or indirectly. These damages are often in terms of money from the party that stands accused of causing harm (Currie & Cameron, 2000). Usually, these matters often end up in a court of law. However, civil wrongs cannot be
The argument behind this case is that the occupier conducting the construction operations is aware of the danger and therefore is under obligation to offer protection.
One such case which was controversial was