PATEL VISHVA MITESHKUMAR
STUDENT ID: 11616038
ASSIGNMENT 2 SUBJECT CODE:- 504 SUBMITTED BY:- PATEL VISHVA MITESHKUMAR SUBMITTED TO:- REETA VERMA STUDENT ID:- 11616038
Answer:-
Issue:-
Does Aurora have any cause of action against Mac Tools Ltd in negligence to the injury to her eye?
Does Jessie have a cause of action against Mac Tools Ltd in negligence for the loss to her vase? Law:-
Three essential elements that a plaintiff should prove to be a liability claim for negligence. In order to prove negligence responsibilities that the applicant must demonstrate, (1) The Duty of care has to …show more content…
Stevenson [1932] All Er 1. Module 3 page 26) is a duty of care whether the applicant is dependent on a class that the defendants should reasonably have to predict that it was suffered by the losses if the defendant was careless and a reasonable presumption was also influenced by the concept it should have. To determine whether a reasonable diligence is or not to break, the court balances the seriousness of the loss against the possibility and the costs or the effort to prevent losses in less effort. In (Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 ) had said that probability is because the accident was very small, so that a reasonable person could not be fair to consider. In (Paris v. Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367) was considered an important issue of seriousness in damages. In (Latimer v AEC ltd [1953] AC 643), Court has held that the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent damage, so cannot be held responsible. (CSU module 3 page
STUDENT ID: 11616038
ASSIGNMENT 2 SUBJECT CODE:- 504 SUBMITTED BY:- PATEL VISHVA MITESHKUMAR SUBMITTED TO:- REETA VERMA STUDENT ID:- 11616038
Answer:-
Issue:-
Does Aurora have any cause of action against Mac Tools Ltd in negligence to the injury to her eye?
Does Jessie have a cause of action against Mac Tools Ltd in negligence for the loss to her vase? Law:-
Three essential elements that a plaintiff should prove to be a liability claim for negligence. In order to prove negligence responsibilities that the applicant must demonstrate, (1) The Duty of care has to …show more content…
Stevenson [1932] All Er 1. Module 3 page 26) is a duty of care whether the applicant is dependent on a class that the defendants should reasonably have to predict that it was suffered by the losses if the defendant was careless and a reasonable presumption was also influenced by the concept it should have. To determine whether a reasonable diligence is or not to break, the court balances the seriousness of the loss against the possibility and the costs or the effort to prevent losses in less effort. In (Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 ) had said that probability is because the accident was very small, so that a reasonable person could not be fair to consider. In (Paris v. Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367) was considered an important issue of seriousness in damages. In (Latimer v AEC ltd [1953] AC 643), Court has held that the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent damage, so cannot be held responsible. (CSU module 3 page