Bought a company based on company accounts from the Company House. Accounts had described the company wrong - negligence in certiftying the accounts. Creation of 3 sub-tests.
1 of 8
Was the loss foreseeable?
The loss (physical injury and/or damage to property) has to be one that a reasonable person would foresee in the circumstance. Was the claimant's loss a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions?
2 of 8
Langley v Dray 1998
It was foreseeable that Langley, a police officer, would crash his car during a high speed pursuit of criminal Dray
3 of 8
Was there proximity between the parties?
This can mean physical, professional or both. Between the claimant and the defendant.
4 of 8
Bourhill v Young 1943
Physical proximity - Bourhill was not physically proximate to Young as she only heard Young's crash but did not see it.
5 of 8
Watson v British Boxing Board of Control 2001
Professional proximity - did exist as Watson fought a world title fight under their rules and regulations so they had to provide a ringside doctor but failed to do so.
6 of 8
Is it fair, just and reasonable?
In some circumstances, it may not be fair, just and reasonable to hold the defendant responsible for a duty of care to his neighbour.
7 of 8
Sam v Atkins 2005
It was not fair, just and reasonable to hold Atkins responsible for Sam's injuries as Sam stepped out from behind a lorry into the path of Atkins' car which was going at 20mph.
8 of 8
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Was the loss foreseeable?
Back
The loss (physical injury and/or damage to property) has to be one that a reasonable person would foresee in the circumstance. Was the claimant's loss a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions?
Comments
No comments have yet been made