1 / 26

Tort Cases

Tort Cases. http://tinyurl.com/classiccaselaw. Reference. www.singaporelaw.sg Singapore Business Law by Benny Tabalujan and Valerie Du Toit -Low. Negligence: Duty of Care. Mrs Donoghue’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by Stephenson

osma
Télécharger la présentation

Tort Cases

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Tort Cases http://tinyurl.com/classiccaselaw

  2. Reference • www.singaporelaw.sg • Singapore Business Law by Benny Tabalujan and Valerie Du Toit-Low

  3. Negligence: Duty of Care • MrsDonoghue’s friend bought her a bottle of ginger beer, manufactured by Stephenson • Mrs D found a decomposed snail in it,fell ill • Mrs D had no contract with Stephenson

  4. Negligence: Duty of Care • House of Lords: Mrs D could sue in tort, not contract • Stephenson owed a Duty of Care – • You must take reasonable care not to injure your neighbour • Your neighbour is someone closely and directly affected by my actions

  5. Negligence: Duty of Care • Anns leased a block of flats from a builder • There were defects in construction • The London Borough of Merton had approved construction • Did London Borough of Merton owe a Duty to Anns?

  6. Negligence: Duty of Care • House of Lords: Yes, the test is • Was there a relationship of proximity between them, so that carelessness would cause damage? Yes • Are there any reasons to reduce this duty? No

  7. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Wells pulled on a door handle made by Cooper (amateur carpenter) • The door handle fell off and Wells fell down the stairs

  8. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Court: Cooper had not breached his duty of care • He had met the standard of a reasonable amateur carpenter, he was not an expert

  9. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Bolton’s house was near a cricket field owned by Stone • Bolton was hit by a cricket ball • The balls usually did not reach this far, only happened 6 times in 30 years

  10. Negligence: Breach of Duty • House of Lords: There was a Duty of Care, but the Duty was not breached • The chances of that happening were too small for the club to take steps to prevent them

  11. Negligence: Breach of Duty • Latimer worked in AEC Ltd’s factory • The factory became flooded and management did everything possible to clear the effects of the flood, but the factory floor was still slippery • Latimer walked on the floor, fell and was injured

  12. Negligence: Breach of Duty • House of Lords: There was a Duty of Care, but there was no breach • The risk was not great enough to justify the management doing further steps like closing the factory

  13. Negligence: Breach must cause damage • Barnett was poisoned with arsenic without his knowledge – at the time there was no cure • He went to A&E but the doctor failed to diagnose him • He died at home 5 hours later

  14. Negligence: Breach must cause damage • Court: There was a Duty of Care • The Duty of Care had been breached • BUT the breach did not cause his death – he would have died anyway

  15. Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness) • The ship Wagon Mound was loading fuel oil at a wharf • Defendant was negligent and spilled fuel oil, which spread to the next wharf, owned by Plaintiff • Plaintiff received expert advice that the fuel oil would not burn in water, so he let his workers continue welding at the wharf • The welding sparks ignited the fuel and fire damaged Plaintiff’s wharf

  16. Negligence: Breach must cause damage (remoteness) • Privy Council – It was too remote / unforeseeable that the fuel oil would burn in water • Since the damage was not reasonably foreseeable, Defendant would not be liable

  17. Negligence: Defences • Xu Jin Long was a construction worker working for Nian Chuan Construction • Xu walked up a metal staircase to his dorm, it collapsed and he fell 5 metres to the ground • Nian Chuan Construction had given instructions for the staircase to be removed

  18. Negligence:Defences • High Court: Nian Chuan had given instructions to dismantle, but had not given warning not to use the stairs or cordoned it of • A reasonable worker would not have known • Xu had no contributory negligence, NC were fully liable

  19. Negligent Statements: Duty of Care • Hedley Byrne Co were advertising agents who wanted credit info on a new client Easipower before doing work, so they asked Easipower’s bank, Heller & Partners • Heller told Hedley Byrne that Easipower was “respectably constituted … good for ordinary business” • Easipower collapsed

  20. Negligent Statements: Duty of Care • House of Lords: There was a special relationship because • Hedley Byrne could reasonably rely on Heller’s judgment • Heller gave HB info that they knew HB would rely on • Therefore Heller owed a duty of care to HB • (Special case: Heller escaped because they had an exclusion clause)

  21. Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty • Yeo Yoke Mui engaged lawyer Ng Liang Poh to check a corner terrace house before purchase • Ng got a road interpretation plan from LTA “land is affected by Cat 4 and 5 roads” • Following standard procedure, Ng forwarded the plan to Yeo • Yeo paid the deposit, later discovered that land affected by Cat 4 roads cannot be redeveloped

  22. Negligent Statements: Breach of Duty • Court of Appeal: It was not enough for Ng to following standard procedure and forwarding the plan • In this case, because of the special nature of Cat 4 roads, Ng should have explained it to Yeo as well

  23. Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff • SDP wrote an article about the NKF scandal • “Singaporeans must note that the NKF is not an aberration of the PAP system. It is, instead, a product of it.” • “How does this compare to the PAP? The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) is a business entity set up, and chaired, by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to manage and invest our national reserves.” • Is not power in Singapore centred around one party, if not one individual?”

  24. Defamation: Referring to the Plaintiff • There was “defamation by implication” – the reader was invited to compare a person (LKY) with another disreputable individual (Chairman of NKF) – implying that LKY was also dishonest • The words were capable of being understood to refer to both LHL and LKY • The ordinary reader would have understood the words as referring to both LHL and LKY

  25. Defamation:Defences • SICC posted a Notice on the notice boards of their clubhouses. • They suspended KSP's club membership because she had falsely declared Mr Ng Kong Yeam ("NKY") as her spouse to make use of the Club's facilities since September 1992, • The marriage certificate showed that her marriage to NKY was only registered on 24 August 2005

  26. Defamation:Defences • It was defamatory – created an ill opinion of KSP in the mind of the reasonable reader and to cause KSP to be shunned or avoided as a result • BUT SICC had the defence of Justification: The statement of KSP's dishonest conduct was substantially true!

More Related