“Whenever the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty, they do it as a matter of policy so as to limit the responsibility of the defendant” It should be seen that the courts do not always mark out the bounds of duty to limit the responsibility of the defendant, they sometimes do it to protect the interests of someone who has suffered a loss. However it is important for the courts to limit the responsibility of the defendant due to the ‘floodgates problem’. What is more, the courts sometimes treat certain groups of defendants leniently by limiting their liability in some cases. On one hand, the courts draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty to protect the interests of and compensate those who have suffered a loss and injury and this is also one of the major aims of tort law. In Donoghue v. Stevenson 1, the courts judged the manufacturer of the ginger beer, David Stevenson of Paisley owned a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue even though there was no contract between them.
Despite being restrictive of the responsibility of the defendant most of the time, it does, however, also extend the liability of the defendant in certain cases. Both will be considered in this essay in further details. The encounter of novel cases necessitates the courts to invoke the Caparo 3-stage test to determine the existence and extent of duty of care not yet established by the authorities. The ‘fair, just, and reasonable’ stage, under which matters of policy are to be considered, is what must always be faced when using the test. Andrew Robertson proposed two categories of policy considerations: ‘justice between the parties’1 and ‘justiciability, community welfare and other non-justice considerations’2 which concerns the effects that recognition of the duty may have on legal system or on people’s behaviour.4 Even when no public policy matters are said to be concerned and the decision reached on the basis of foreseeability and proximity proves desirable, the decision actually conforms to the former sense of policy where it is thought to be fair among the parties to do so.
In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
2) Once promissory estoppel is applied damages should be those designed to prevent injustice, not to enforce the promises made. Reasons: For a finding of promissory estoppel, the requirements are: a promise which the promissor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and
The steering mechanism defect of the vehicle made it unfit for ordinary use ultimately causing the injuries. If the laws were such that a vendor could be released from liability in advance, most of them would use this as standard practice to release them from being held accountable. This would leave the consumers at a complete disadvantage and ultimately wouldn’t be good for either side in the bigger
Mrs Birling appears not to believe that someone like Eva, a 'lower class' person, could even have feelings, let alone need them taking into account. The older generation can be exemplified through their attitudes which revolve around protecting their own social status whereby they do not seem to care for anyone but themselves and their family, this can be recognised when the Inspector reveals all about Eva Smith, and their reaction to this awful death, even though they are involved, seems to be non-existent, though evidence is presented by the inspector, they still persist that they haven't participated to this death. They are completely unsympathetic towards
According to Nagel, there is a paradox in moral responsibility caused by two concept: moral luck and the Control Principle. Moral luck designates blame on someone for actions outside of their control. The Control Principle, on the other hand, is the belief that blame should only be designated on someone for actions within their control. These two ideas are in direct contradiction of one another and it would be foolish to believe both. However, Nagel argues that we cannot plausibly reject either of them.
On that alone I was willing to support his perspective, but needed to critically evaluate it as a credible argument. I wanted to prove that through Fulbright’s argument there was an alternative to involvement in conflict. I learned in my critical evaluation that even though it is desirable not to get involved in war, and not sacrifice American lives, that Fulbright does not provide a reasonable alternative. It was a difficult conclusion to reach. I had to overcome my own bias on the issue and examine objectively each aspect and implication of Fulbright’s argument.
He passed a law that restrained anyone from burying his own nephew’s body. Creon tried to prove that by ignoring family relations he gave more importance to law and order in Thebes. He believed his law was more powerful than the laws of the gods. He believed that anyone who disobeyed his law will be punished no matter who you are; this was the biggest mistake which lead him to lose his son and his nephew. Second, Creon abused his power by thinking that he can change or break the laws of the Gods and not allowing other people to break his laws.
If a law is in direct violation of any moral rule, then action is required. Such action cannot also be in violation of moral for then the intention is overlooked, using your actions to justify the injustice present in that law. One must approach the authority