Bolton V Stone. Tort Negligence Essay

833 words - 3 pages

Did this case concern criminal or civil law?This case concerns civil law. Cases arising from civilian disputes, for example, an individual dents his neighbour’s car and refuses to accept any financial responsibility, the neighbour can take said individual to court to claim damages. These are cases not relating to state matters but those of a private, more personal nature and resolved through legal redress i.e. compensations or injunctions.What court was the case heard at?The case was heard at The Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The House of Lords, the highest appeal court in England. Judges here are called Law Lords and titles were exclusively hereditarily gained.Name one judge in the case?The late Lord Reid was one of the judges presiding over this case.Outline the meaning of appellant and respondent?An appellant is a person or group of people who appeal a court decision. The respondent is the party against whom the petition or appeal has been brought or the persons who replies. Therefore if the defendant (the accused) did not succeed in his case and appealed, he would no longer be the respondent, instead, becoming the appellant, bringing forth a petition against the decision, causing the original claimant to become the respondent.What particular area of law did it concern?The Law covered in this case is tort, the body of law which provides legal remedies to those who have endured the civil wrongs of others. The Bolton v Stone case is based on the areas of negligence and nuisance. Negligence is an act or conduct that falls below the standard level of due care taken by a reasonable person to prevent an individual from a foreseeable risk of harm. From wikipedia the free encyclopedia, negligence, (2008).Nuisance is an act or acts which cause offence, annoyance, trouble or injury to people exercising their common rights and can be either public or private. Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, nuisance, (2008). Public nuisance concerns excessive interference with the public's right to property including operations that intrude upon public health and safety, peace or convenience.A private nuisance occurs when a persons ‘quiet enjoyment of land’ is significantly disturbed.Wikipedia the free encyclopedia, nuisance (2008)Who won the case and for what reason?The appellant earlier sued Bolton and others for nuisance and negligence at Manchester Assizes, both grounds were dismissed by Oliver, J. At the Court...

Find Another Essay On Bolton v Stone. Tort-Negligence

The Treatment of Women and Men Sports Players

6468 words - 26 pages must be taken to willingly accept the risks involved in playing on that field. So unless there is something that is seriously wrong with the ground it is unlikely that there could be any claims against the club. There could also be claims from the general public against the club. This is shown in the case of Bolton v Stone [1951] All ER 1078 where it was held that the incident must be reasonably foreseeable and the result

Canadian Tort Law Essay

1925 words - 8 pages Engineers, contractors, and other businesses must be mindful of and knowledgeable of their legal obligations when performing their occupation or supplying a product. Negligence in the design or construction of a product that results in damage or bodily harm, or could result in damage or bodily harm, can result in liability for economic loss under Canadian Tort law. Engineers, architects, and contractors need to be respectful of their duty of

The Purpose of Tort Law in the Irish Legal System

3219 words - 13 pages have lost this consideration. Tort on the other hand is seen as the law of personal wrongs, and although it too contains a breach of duty, is different from contract law. An example of a tort is negligence, this is the failure of a person to take the degree of care necessary in order not to injure another party. If someone is injured due to the negligence of another, the wrong doer may be held liable and have to pay compensation to the injured

Common Law in Australia: The Tort Of Negligence

9095 words - 36 pages general practice itself may not conform to the standard of care required of a reasonably prudent man. In such a case it is not a good defence that the defendant acted in accordance with the general practice…"2b)The probability of an accident occurring for which the plaintiff may suffer the damageA too remote of a risk usually means that there is no negligence:•Bolton v Stone - Negligence - Foresseability - Standard of care - At a cricket

Involuntary Manslaughter

1133 words - 5 pages Caldwell or objective recklessness was formerly required. However, following R v G (2003), this kind of recklessness is no longer applicable. Gross Negligence manslaughter Gross negligence manslaughter is another way of committing manslaughter. It is completely different from unlawful act manslaughter. It is committed where the defendant owes the victim a duty of care but breaches it in a very negligent way, causing

Law AQA Unit 2 - Criminal Liability, Offences Against the person (non fatal), - Law - Essay

5895 words - 24 pages character · pleading guilty at first opportunity (will take 1/3 off sentence usually) · provocation · remorse · Aggravating - make sentence more severe · vulnerable victim · public interest · hate crimes · premeditation · lying · absconding · under the influence of alcohol/drugs · severity of crimes · multiple offences  The Tort of Negligence Donoghue v Stevenson established modern negligence and found 3 factors needed for it to be negligence: · The

Tort Law for Damages Practiced in Civil Law

1517 words - 7 pages Tort Law Tort Law has been a Civic Law practiced and used since the beginning of Law, after mankind first discovered what was right and what was wrong. It is a private or civil wrong for which damages may be removed and involves; falls at work, work vehicles, and nuisances. It’s a civil law that can be recognized for a law suit. It has a wide range of provisions and can range from negligence, purposeful, and ethics. Among the types of damages

Cause of Action in Negligence

1003 words - 5 pages ://www.consumerbuild.org.nz/publish/phase/buildingphase-final.php. Last accessed 9th November 2013. Lord Atkin. (1932). Negligence – duty of care. Available: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Duty-of-care.php. Last accessed 8th November 2013. Negligence Duty of care Cases. (2003). Available: http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/cases/negligence-duty-cases.php. Last accessed 8th November 2013. Neighbour principle. (2003). Available: http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/essays/neighbour-principle.php. Last accessed 8th November 2013. Tort - Caparo v Dickman. (2003). Available: http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/essays/tort-caparo-v-dickman.php. Last accessed 8th November 2013.

tort of negligent investigation

1182 words - 5 pages Introduction As police officers own right to carry out an investigation on the suspect, public arise concerning on negligent investigation. In the Hill v. Hamiton-Wentworth case, Mr. Hill was accused robbery and then was proved innocent. Mr. Hill filled a lawsuit against police officers on the tort of negligent investigation, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Hill’s appeal. Moreover, a majority of the court recognizes there is a tort

Legal systems: Duty of Care and Negligence

1406 words - 6 pages the defendant. The occurrence of any loophole within the process of justifying negligence critically affects the case. Notably, areas that allow courts to limit liability in negligence fall within the established duty of care legal provisions.   Books Dickson B, Human Rights and the United Kingdom Supreme Court (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013) Harpwood V, Modern Tort Law (Taylor & Francis, London 2008) Steele J, Tort Law: Text, Cases, and

Law: Understanding Law

4874 words - 19 pages illustrate the Risk of Harm is Bolton v Stone [1951] 1 All ER 1078, HL Miss Stone, standing on the pavement outside her house, was struck by a cricket ball hit from an adjacent cricket ground. The ball must have travelled about 100 yards, clearing a 17-foot fence, and such a thing had happened only about six times in thirty years. P's claim for damages was rejected by the House of Lords: the risk was so slight and the expense of reducing it so

Similar Essays

Tortious Liability And Negligence Essay

1813 words - 7 pages liable for the loss.There are various factors, which are used by the courts to determine whether there has been a breach of the duty of care. First they would consider the probability of damage that would be foreseeable. In case of Minnie the ex girl friend having a miscarriage the probability of such event is again very less and so is the probability of Pradnose an Onlooker getting a nervous breakdown.In case of Bolton v. Stone (1951) The House

Tort Law: Harassment Act 1997 Essay

2149 words - 9 pages University Press,London,(2013).pg 102 Katherine A. Currier & Thomas E. Eimermann: Introduction to Paralegal Studies, Aspen, New York,(2010).pg 148 Janice Richardson & Erika Rackley: Feminist Perspectives on Tort Law, Routledge,London,(2012).pg 69 Carol Brennan: Tort Law (2nd edn.), Oxford, London,(2013).pg 131 Steven L. Emanuel: Tort, Aspen, New York,(2009).pg 32 Cases: Bird v Jones [1845] 7 QB 742 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Carnes v

Tortuous Liability Essay

5503 words - 22 pages important as the relationship between the defendant's acts and the claimant must be close enough to be directly affected.The degree of caution taken is determined by the risk, the size of the risk is weighed and balanced against the precautions and costs accrued in order to avoid it. As seen in the case below.CASE: Bolton v Stone, (1951). (Turner, 2003).A ball was hit out of the cricket ground and struck Miss Stone. There was a 17 ft high fence and the

Negligence Case Essay

2979 words - 12 pages right to neglect it, the defendant maybe justified in disregarding such a foreseeable risk of injury (Gibson,2005,p.102). As Bolton V Stone (1951) Cricket ball, is one of the cases that discussed about the probability of harm. From the statement above, it can be shown that there is no probability of harm, why? Because the change of an employer injured are small and therefore the defendant didn’t have to show great amount of care to Mr. Chuck