2975078
Description
Mind Map by jasmine-goh, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by jasmine-goh
over 9 years ago
|
|
Suit against firm in charge of fire
hoses dismissed
- ‘Even if Rhythme had breached its duty of care, the fire was caused by large combustible materials stacked
by Union outside its warehouse, which posed a high fire risk’.
- Defences of Negligence-Contributory Negligence
- partial defence that allows the defendant to be only partially liable for the damage or injury caused
to the plaintiff provided that D can prove that P contributes to his/her own injuries by failing to take reasonable care for
his/her own safety and that this failure was a cause of the damage suffered.
- P-Union Concept Maufacturers is partly to blame for causing the damage by refusing to take
reasonable care for its own safety,cuasing damage.
- P-Union Concept Maufacturers is partly to blame for causing the damage by refusing to take
reasonable care for its own safety,cuasing damage.
- partial defence that allows the defendant to be only partially liable for the damage or injury caused
to the plaintiff provided that D can prove that P contributes to his/her own injuries by failing to take reasonable care for
his/her own safety and that this failure was a cause of the damage suffered.
- Defences of Negligence-Contributory Negligence
- "But a judge has ruled that the inferno had blazed so out of control that even if nearby hose reels
were working, it would not have made a difference."
- Law of Torts-Negligence-Damage caused-The ' But For' test
- ‘Would the damage have happened but for the defendant’s negligence?
- the fire would have caused damages to the Plaintiff even if the hose reel was in working condition as
the flame was proven to have gone out of control too quickly even with a working hose reel, the fire
would not be put out or be brought under control.
- This shows that the Plaintiff’s property would
have been damaged even without the Defendant’s breach of duty.
- This shows that the Plaintiff’s property would
have been damaged even without the Defendant’s breach of duty.
- the fire would have caused damages to the Plaintiff even if the hose reel was in working condition as
the flame was proven to have gone out of control too quickly even with a working hose reel, the fire
would not be put out or be brought under control.
- ‘Would the damage have happened but for the defendant’s negligence?
- Law of Torts-Negligence-Damage caused-The ' But For' test
- Duty Of care
- The defendant ( Rhythme Technology ) owed the public a duty of care
- Rhythme Technology could foresee that the public would rely on the hose in case of emergencies
and if the hose is not well maintained ,the result will be disastrous or life threatening .
- Rhythme Technology could foresee that the public would rely on the hose in case of emergencies
and if the hose is not well maintained ,the result will be disastrous or life threatening .
- The defendant ( Rhythme Technology ) owed the public a duty of care
- Breach of care -standard of care
- The appropriate standard of care that the law should impose on a fire hose company is to provide
checks on a regular basis.
- Though D ( Rhythme Technology ) owed the public a duty of care ,it did not breach that duty .
- “Rhythme's lawyer R. Nandakumar countered that its staff had conducted a physical test on the
hose reel nearest to Union's premises in September 2009, and found the various components of the
system were in order. The results had been recorded. “
- “Rhythme's lawyer R. Nandakumar countered that its staff had conducted a physical test on the
hose reel nearest to Union's premises in September 2009, and found the various components of the
system were in order. The results had been recorded. “
- Though D ( Rhythme Technology ) owed the public a duty of care ,it did not breach that duty .
- The appropriate standard of care that the law should impose on a fire hose company is to provide
checks on a regular basis.
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.