{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Held doc may be owed by parents to an injured 3 rd

Info iconThis preview shows pages 22–25. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
HELD: DOC may be owed by parents to an injured 3 rd party to take control of their own child. Even if duty to their own child is limited. Must be reasonably foreseeable that if the parent doesn’t assert control over the child, the plaintiff is likely to be injured. Special relationship: care and control . Dixon: must take reasonable care to exercise their control over young children to avoid conduct by the child that will hurt someone or their property. Latham: parents not normally liable for torts of their children but parents with control of children are responsible if they are negligent in controlling them. Parents not liable = DOC but no breach = they warned child not to aim it at anybody.
Background image of page 22

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
- ‘Negligence is doing something different to what a reasonable person would do’ ( Blythe’s Case ). - No binding precedents for standard of care – decide each case on its facts ( Quall Cast v Haynes ). DEFINE REASONABLE PERSON Section 48(1)(c): A person is not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless – in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person’s position would have taken those precautions. 23 Carmathenshire County Council v Lewis (1955) FACTS: Council ran pre-school on busy highway. One teacher supervised all of the children but a kid got out and went on to highway. Driver swerved to avoid hitting the child and killed himself. Widow sued council and teacher. Teacher was not negligent. HELD: Council owed DOC to people going past pre-school. They should have put child proof gate. Duty is still owed to a 3 rd party even if person causing the injury is blameless (child in this case). Kerr v Allen (1955 – Shows expansion of principle) FACTS: Plaintiff was a land lord. D was a neighbour. P rented house out to man and his child. D agreed to babysit the child with her own 2 children (2 x 3yrold and a 5 yr old). The kids left to go next door to the plaintiff’s house and set fire to it. Issue: Did the babysitter owe a duty of care to the land lord to take affirmative action to control the kids? HELD: Babysitter liable. Reasonably foreseeable that the damage would occur if she did not exercise her duty of care and control over the children. BREACH/STANDARD OF CARE Vaughn v Menlove FACTS: D built a haystack. There was a risk of spontaneous combustion if it was built wrong but he built it his own way anyway. It combusted and burnt down P’s house. HELD: Negligent. Doing your best is not enough. Objective test – reasonable person.
Background image of page 23
NB: In cases where there is insurance, reasonable person = god-like. What Characteristics Can You Imbue Upon the Reasonable Person? Illustrative Cases: NB: This would not occur if he had been driving a car – not something a 12 yr old does cf. playing. NB: Disabilities also taken into account. E.g. blindness – though may raise standard if D is aware of the disability.
Background image of page 24

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 25
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page22 / 45

HELD DOC may be owed by parents to an injured 3 rd party to...

This preview shows document pages 22 - 25. Sign up to view the full document.

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