Web29 ian. 2024 · Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304. NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – CHILDREN. Facts. The defendant was a 15-year-old girl who play-fought with rulers … WebChildren are only required to act as a reasonable child of the same age would: Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304. People who are unaware they have a physical illness need only act like a reasonable ill person who is also unaware: Mansfield v Weetabix [1997] EWCA Civ 1352.

Lecture Outlines PDF Tort Negligence - Scribd

WebMullin v Richards [1998] 1 All ER 920. by Lawprof Team; Key point. In negligence, the standard of care has to take into account D’s age if D is a child; Facts. C and D were … garmin icons meaning

McHale v Watson: 7 Mar 1966 - swarb.co.uk

WebTUTORIAL 2: FAULT/BREACH OF DUTY Key Reading: Horsey and Rackley, Chapter 8 Case Law: [OBJECTIVE STANDARD] Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691; [1971] 3 All ER 581; [1971] EWCA Civ 6 Available on QSIS and online at [VARIATION OF THE OBJECTIVE STANDARD/CHILDREN] Mullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304; [1998] 1 All ER 920; … WebMullin v Richards [1998] 1 WLR 1304 Court of Appeal. Two 15 year old school girls were fighting with plastic rulers. A ruler snapped and a splinter went into one of the girls eyes … The defendant was a 15-year-old girl who play-fought with rulers with another 15-year-old girl (the claimant). In the course of the game, the defendant’s ruler snapped, causing a splinter to hit the claimant in the eye, blinding her. The claimant sued the defendant in the tort of negligence for her injuries. Vedeți mai multe Establishing the tort of negligence involves establishing that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, which they breached in a manner which caused the claimant … Vedeți mai multe The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was not in breach of the duty of care she owed to the claimant. This case established the principle that the defendant’s identity as a child is relevant to the … Vedeți mai multe garmin icons cars