1 / 2 sider - klik for at bladre

Duty of care i erstatningsret

Det er gratis at oprette en konto

Duty of care i erstatningsret er en projektopgave-opgave til 1.g el. lign.. Fylder 2 sider (641 ord, ca. 3 min. læsning) og blev publiceret 25. december 2010.

Denne opgave redegør for begrebet 'duty of care' inden for erstatningsret. Den forklarer 'neighbor principle' etableret i Donoghue v Stevenson og de tre krav fra Caparo Industries v Dickman: foreseeability, proximity og fair, just and reasonable. Flere retssager bruges som eksempler til at illustrere principperne.

Redaktørens vurdering
10 Fortrinlig
Solid redegørelse for 'duty of care' i erstatningsret med relevante cases og klar forklaring af de juridiske principper. God faglig substans.
Struktur
10
Faglig dybde
10
Kilder
10
Fuldstændighed
10
  • caparo industries v dickman
  • donoghue v stevenson
  • duty of care
  • erstatningsret
  • fair just and reasonable
  • foreseeability
  • negligence
  • neighbor principle
  • proximity
  • tort law

In tort law, a duty of care is legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foresee-ably harm others. The courts had decided that a duty should be owed, E.G road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. The neighbor test has been made to expound such a general test, the neighbor principle means that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbor. With the term 'neighbor' its meant people who are so closely and directly affected by your act, E.g drivers and road users, doctors and patients. The neighbour principle was established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, this case was about a snail in the ginger beer bottle, its where two friends went out for a drink, friend of Mrs Donoghue ordered for a drink, as Mrs Donoghue started to drink from the ginger beer bottle a contaminated snail fell out of it, therefore Mrs donoghue suffered several injuries, Mrs Donoghue had no direct or indirect claim against the manufacturer based on contractual obligations because she did not purchase the product but yet she sued the manufacturer.

Få adgang til denne og 100.000+ andre opgaver i PDF

Det er gratis at oprette en konto

Du har også set på

Lignende opgaver