October 3 Case and Notes

October 3 Case and Notes - October 3 2008 Review The burden...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
October 3, 2008 Review: The burden of the doctor or anyone to clarify the situation if they know the person does not understand what they are consenting to. Property Defence: One is defending their property or interfering someone getting to their property. Cannot use serious force. If you go to force that is less the serious, you can use reasonable force to protect your property. Recapture: They have gotten to the article and are carrying it away. You can use force if the person obtained it wrongfully The owner is in fresh pursuit Used reasonable force D has a superior right of possession. There was a demand unless demand is useless. This privilege is in fact the person has stolen property. Even if the owner reasonably believes, there is still no privilege. Detention: For FI Shopkeeper’s privilege to detain if the person reasonably believes the person stole. Reasonable cause to believe is enough. No force, or minimal force. Necessity: Defence to enter land or interfere with property. Public Necessity: you are acting for the good of the public, reasonably believed that tortuous conduct was immediately necessary to avoid threatened harm to the community. Do not have to pay damages. Private Necessity: doing good for yourself. Incomplete defence, you can do it, but you still have to pay for the damages you have caused. It is still lawful, so people cannot interfere. Justification: The reasons justifying that the D’s conduct outweighs the tort. 4. The Standard of Care A. The Reasonable Prudent Person Vaughan v. Menlove Court of Common Pleas, 1837 Law: If an occupier burns near the boundary of his land that damage ensues to the property of his neighbor, his is liable to an action for the amount of injury done, unless the accident were occasioned by a sudden blast that was not foreseeable. Facts: Df built a hay rick near the boundary of his land not far from his neighbor’s cottages. Over a period of five weeks the df was warned of the danger that the rick would ignite. He made a chimney thereafter the rick ignited in flame from the spontaneous combustion within the materials. The flames communicated to the PL’s cottages, and df’s barn and stables.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Reasoning: The df did not himself light the fire, yet mediately, he is as much the cause of it as if he himself put a candle to the rick; for it is well known that hay will ferment and take fire if it be not carefully stacked. The stacking of hay within a rick requires a regard of caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. Issue: Whether the construction and subsequent molding of the rick constituted a standard of care that a reasonable prudent person would exercise? Procedure: First impression case. Jury returned a verdict for PL.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 11

October 3 Case and Notes - October 3 2008 Review The burden...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online