华南俳烁实业有限公司

考試首頁 | 考試用書 | 培訓課程 | 模擬考場 | 考試論壇  
  當前位置:考試網(wǎng) >> ACCA/CAT >> CAT考試 >> 文章內(nèi)容
  

ACCA《公司法與商法》精選試題及答案3

考試網(wǎng)  [ 2016年4月13日 ] 【

  Question:

  In relation to the TORT OF NEGLIGENCE, explain:

  (a)the standard of care owed by one person to another;

  (b)remoteness of damage.

  Answer:

  (a)The law does not require unreasonable steps to be taken to avoid breaching a duty of care. In legal terms, a breach of duty of care occurs if the defendant fails:

  '…… to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do; or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.' (Blyth v BirminghamWaterworks Co (1856))

  Thus the fact that the defendant has acted less skilfully than the reasonable person would expect will usually result in a breach being established. This is the case even where the defendant is inexperienced in their particular trade or activity. For example, a learner driver must drive in the manner of a driver of skill, experience and care (Nettleship v Weston (1971)). However, the standard of care expected from a child may be lower than that of an adult (Mullin v Richards (1998)).

  Clearly the degree, or standard, of care to be exercised by such a reasonable person will vary depending on circumstances, but the following factors will be taken into consideration in determining the issue:

  (i)The seriousness of the risk

  The degree of care must be balanced against the degree of risk involved if the defendant fails in their duty. It follows, therefore, that the greater the risk of injury or the more likely it is to occur, the more the defendant will have to do to fulfil their duty. The degree of care to be exercised by the defendant may be increased if the claimant is very young, old or less able bodied in some way. The rule is that 'you must take your victim as you find him' (this is known as the egg-shell skull rule).

  In Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) the defendants, in order to carry out repairs, had made a hole in the pavement. The precautions taken by the Electricity Board were sufficient to safeguard a sighted person, but Haley, who was blind, fell into the hole, striking his head on the pavement, and became deaf as a consequence. It was held that the Electricity Board was in breach of its duty of care to pedestrians. It had failed to ensure that the excavation was safe for all pedestrians, not just sighted persons. It was clearly not reasonably safe for blind persons, yet it was foreseeable that they might use the pavement.

  The degree of risk has to be balanced against the social utility and importance of the defendant's activity. For example, in Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954), the injury sustained by the plaintiff, a fireman, whilst getting to an emergency situation, was not accepted as being the result of a breach of duty of care as, in the circumstances, time was not available to take the measures which would have removed the risk.

  (ii)Cost and practicability

  Any foreseeable risk has to be balanced against the measures necessary to eliminate it. If the cost of these measures far outweighs the risk, the defendant will probably not be in breach of duty for failing to carry out those measures (Latimer v AEC Ltd (1952)).

  (iii)Skilled persons

  Individuals who hold themselves out as having particular skills are not judged against the standard of the reasonable person, but the reasonable person possessing the same professional skill as they purport to have (Roe v Minister of Health (1954)).

  (b)The position in negligence is that the person ultimately liable in damages is only responsible to the extent that the loss sustained was considered not to be too remote. The test for remoteness was established in The Wagon Mound (No 1) (1961).

  The defendants negligently allowed furnace oil to spill from a ship into Sydney harbour, which subsequently caused a fire, which spread to, and damaged, the plaintiff's wharf. Although the defendants were held to be in breach of their duty of care, they were only liable for the damage caused to the wharf and slipway through the fouling of the oil. They were not liable for the damage caused by fire because damage by fire was at that time unforeseeable (the oil had a high ignition point and it could not be foreseen that it would ignite on water).

1 2
本文糾錯】【告訴好友】【打印此文】【返回頂部
將考試網(wǎng)添加到收藏夾 | 每次上網(wǎng)自動訪問考試網(wǎng) | 復制本頁地址,傳給QQ/MSN上的好友 | 申請鏈接 | 意見留言 TOP
關于本站  網(wǎng)站聲明  廣告服務  聯(lián)系方式  站內(nèi)導航  考試論壇
Copyright © 2006-2019 考試網(wǎng)(Examw.com) All Rights Reserved  營業(yè)執(zhí)照
武强县| 岳普湖县| 五峰| 正定县| 大宁县| 盐池县| 临武县| 密云县| 都昌县| 延边| 苏尼特右旗| 宿迁市| 长寿区| 原平市| 都昌县| 常宁市| 民乐县| 阿荣旗| 玛沁县| 高邑县| 上虞市| 金门县| 德清县| 体育| 富顺县| 眉山市| 偃师市| 陆良县| 陆川县| 曲阜市| 临安市| 水富县| 伊金霍洛旗| 南和县| 宿州市| 嘉峪关市| 汤阴县| 万宁市| 团风县| 隆昌县| 东兴市|