The Case Of Donoghue V. Wright's Case

812 Words 4 Pages
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
…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 …show more content…
The test is known as the test to determine the causation. (Cork v Kirby MacLean Ltd (1952) 2 All ER 402) “but for” test and ask Do the damage still happen to the plaintiffs if the defendant was not a necessary careless liability?" These three main items determine whether or not Whether the defendant is responsible or not. (CSU module 3 page 32) If the plaintiff becomes successful in the courtesy, the precuniarias gave damage and no damage to precuniarias. Responding to the defendant can be irresponsible because (Mak Woon King v Wong Chiu (2000) 2 HKLRD 295), where the partial defense resulted in the loss of the defendant proves that the plaintiffs did not care fairly and were partial to them.
Contributing negligence is also an important idea that the defendant proves that the plaintiffs have suffered losses due to inadequate care due to inadequacy due to some extent responsible for the loss. (CSU module 4 page

Related Documents