More handpicked essays just for you.
A free complete guide to writing argumentative essays
An essay on the common law system in England
A free complete guide to writing argumentative essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The case of Kamloops v. Nielson was a landmark decision for tort law, since it established the duty of care principle in Canadian private law, which prior to this case was used in the Anns v. Merton case and expanded the scope of duty first identified in Donoghue v. Stevenson. In the historic case of Donoghue v. Stevenson, duty of care was established to include anyone that could be foreseeably harmed by someone’s actions, creating the neighbour principle. The Anns v. Merton case expanded the scope of the neighbour principle to including public bodies, such as the municipality. The case involved a faulty building foundation, which resulting in requiring repairs for the house, and whether the municipality should have to pay for the repairs, since it was the job of the municipality to inspect and ensure the building was properly constructed. Whether public tax allocations should be subject to tort litigations was placed in question in the case but the municipality was held liable for damages nevertheless. Lord Wilberforce, the judges who presided over the Anns v. Merton case used a two-step test in determining the scope of proximity between the homeowner and the municipality. The first part of the test determined whether the relationship between the two parties was sufficient enough so that failure to exercise a duty of care by one of the parties would result in damages sustained by the other. The second step, pursuant upon the first step looks at any aspects that would limit the obligations placed on the party to exercise a duty of care. This test and the Anns v. Merton case set a strong precedent that was used in the Kamloops v. Nielson case, the first of its kind in Canada. In the Kamloops v. Nielson case, a house being built did not pass the inspection by the city and construction was stopped, however the builder ignored the requests and continued to build the home without passing the necessary requirements for safety. The inspector also chose not to follow-up on the builder and allowed him to build the house without proper approval. The house was then sold to a couple that was unaware of the history of the home, and once problems arose with the foundation, they sued the municipality and the vendor. Similar to the Anns v. Merton case, this case questioned whether duty of care could be expanded to municipalities, and the presiding judge used the Anns test in determining duty of care.
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Blair, Annice. Law in Action: Understanding Canadian Law. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, 2003. Print.
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Many important cases have come before the Supreme Court since the expansion of the trust doctrine. Take the Village of Menomonee Falls vs. DNR where there was the proposal to channelize two and a half miles of Lilly Creek with concrete for purposes of stormwater control. The DNR won this case because it would destroy the natural habitat and aesthetics of the stream and was inconsistent with the goals for the area that had already been established.
Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights
"MORSE v. FREDERICK." Cornell University Law School. N.p., 19 Mar. 2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
... Works Cited Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 US 357 (1978) Town of Newton v. Rumery, 480 US 386 (1987) Oyler v. Boles, 368 US 448 (1962) Wayte v. United States, 470 US 598 Falls v. Town of Dyer, Indiana, 875 F.2d 146 (7th Cir.1989) United States v. Robinson, 311 F.Supp.
Dalkeith Railway Co. v Wauchope (1842) 8 Cl & F 710. In this case a
Mariner, W. K., Annas, G. J., & Glantz, L. H. (2005). Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in turn.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)