cases for judicial precedent

R v R – there was a judicial statement from 1736 which suggested that a husband could not be guilty of ****** his wife because by marrying him the wife had given her body and all her property to her husband. In this case the husband and wife had separated and the husband attacked and ***** his wife. He used the 1736 statement as a defence. The House of Lords decided that the statement no longer applied in the 20th century and updated the law to convict the husband. This decision was confirmed by an Act of Parliament in 1994 to make marital **** an offence.

British Rail v Herrington - there was a precedent from Addie v Dumbreck in 1929 which stated that owners of land are not liable for an injury to a trespasser. A 5 year old boy was electrocuted when he came into contact with the electrified third rail after climbing through a broken fence which British Rail were aware of. The House of Lords imposed a duty of common humanity on British Rail and to allow a claim for compensation by the injured boy. They considered that social conditions had changed since 1929 to require a change in the law. Their decision was later confirmed by an Act of Parliament in 1984 imposing civil liability on owners of land against trespassers