1166:, it must be shown that the particular acts or omissions were the cause of the loss or damage sustained. Although the notion sounds simple, the causation between one's breach of duty and the harm that results to another can at times be very complicated. The basic test is to ask whether the injury would have occurred 'but for', or without, the accused party's breach of the duty owed to the injured party. In Australia, the High Court has held that the 'but for' test is not the exclusive test of causation because it cannot address a situation where there is more than one cause of damage. When 'but for' test is not satisfied and the case is an exceptional one, a commonsense test ('Whether and Why' test) will be applied Even more precisely, if a breaching party materially increases the risk of harm to another, then the breaching party can be sued to the value of harm that he caused.
1377:". The test is self-explanatory: would a reasonable person (as determined by a judge or jury), under the given circumstances, have done what the defendant did to cause the injury in question; or, in other words, would a reasonable person, acting reasonably, have engaged in similar conduct when compared to the one whose actions caused the injury in question? Simple as the "reasonable person" test sounds, it is very complicated. It is a risky test because it involves the opinion of either the judge or the jury that can be based on limited facts. However, as vague as the "reasonable person" test seems, it is extremely important in deciding whether or not a plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a negligence tort.
1215:, was not liable for an injury suffered by a distant bystander. The plaintiff, Palsgraf, was hit by coin-operated scale which toppled because of fireworks explosion that fell on her as she waited on a train platform. The scales fell because of a far-away commotion (a train conductor had pushed a passenger holding a box containing an explosive) but it was not clear that what type of commotion caused the scale to fall, either it was the explosion's effect or the confused movement of the terrified people. A train
1205:' (in the U.S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening. A 'proximate cause' in U.S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship). The idea of legal causation is that if no one can foresee something bad happening, and therefore take care to avoid it, how could anyone be responsible? For instance, in
1059:, McHale, a 9-year-old girl was blinded in one eye after being hit by the ricochet of a sharp metal rod thrown by a 12-year-old boy, Watson. The defendant child was held not to have the level of care to the standard of an adult, but of a 12-year-old child with similar experience and intelligence. Kitto J explained that a child's lack of foresight is a characteristic they share with others at that stage of development. The same principle was demonstrated to exist in English law in
1182:
1253:. The wife of a policeman, Mrs Coffey suffered a nervous shock injury from the aftermath of a motor vehicle collision although she was not actually at the scene at the time of the collision. The court upheld that, in addition to it being reasonably foreseeable that his wife might suffer such an injury, it required that there be sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and the defendant who caused the collision. Here there was sufficient causal proximity. See also
4543:
1718:
818:
4557:
1696:
and causation elements in particular give the court the greatest opportunity to take the case from the jury, because they directly involve questions of policy. The court can find that regardless of any disputed facts, the case may be resolved as a matter of law from undisputed facts because as a matter of law the defendant cannot be legally responsible for the plaintiff's injury under a theory of negligence.
1403:– these are damages that are not quantified in monetary terms (e.g., there's no invoice or receipt as there would be to prove special damages). A general damage example is an amount for the pain and suffering one experiences from a car collision. Lastly, where the plaintiff proves only minimal loss or damage, or the court or jury is unable to quantify the losses, the court or jury may award
1488:, lack of experience, or non-compliance with laws, regulations, orders, or disciplinary rules. Consistent with other civil law systems, Turkish Criminal Law also treats criminal responsibility for acts committed negligently as an exception, confined to those acts explicitly stated in the law. Article 23 of the Turkish Penal Code further asserts that for crimes that are
971:. She drank some of the beer and later poured the remainder over her ice-cream and was horrified to see the decomposed remains of a snail exit the bottle. Donoghue suffered nervous shock and gastro-enteritis, but did not sue the cafe owner, instead suing the manufacturer, Stevenson. (As Mrs Donoghue had not herself bought the ginger beer, the doctrine of
1700:
example, in an appeal from a final judgment after a jury verdict, the appellate court will review the record to verify that the jury was properly instructed on each contested element, and that the record shows sufficient evidence for the jury's findings. On an appeal from a dismissal or judgment against the plaintiff without trial, the court will review
1232:
for negligence before having a chance to present to the jury. Cardozo's view is the majority view. However, some courts follow the position put forth by Judge
Andrews. In jurisdictions following the minority rule, defendants must phrase their remoteness arguments in terms of proximate cause if they wish the court to take the case away from the jury.
1573:
3031:
disregard of safety of others. ... negligence represents a state of the mind which however is much serious in nature than mere inadvertence. ... whereas inadvertence is a milder form of negligence, negligence by itself means and imply a state of mind where there is no regard for duty or the supposed care and attention which one ought to bestow."
1228:
written by Judge
Cardozo, that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, because a duty was owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs. Three judges dissented, arguing, as written by Judge Andrews, that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, regardless of foreseeability, because all men owe one another a duty not to act negligently.
1413:– Punitive damages are to punish a defendant, rather than to compensate plaintiffs, in negligence cases. In most jurisdictions punitive damages are recoverable in a negligence action, but only if the plaintiff shows that the defendant's conduct was more than ordinary negligence (i.e., wanton and willful or reckless).
1558:
a similar manner the skill in question. Consequently, it is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that branch which he practices. Professional opinion is generally accepted, but courts may rule otherwise if they feel that the opinion is "not reasonable or responsible".
1435:, the term "négligence" is used to denote an omission, akin to the English term "negligence." However, unlike "criminal negligence", it describes situations where the perpetrator acts without being aware of the potential consequences of their actions or disregards these consequences. Similarly, under the
3030:
In the case of Ms Grewal & Anor v Deep Chand Soon & Ors L.R.I. 1289 at , the court held that "negligence in common parlance mean and imply failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful
1557:
They did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for determining whether or not either of the two findings can be made is whether a competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession would possess or exercise in
1335:. This is Latin for "the thing speaks for itself." To prove negligence under this doctrine the plaintiff must prove (1) the incident does not usually happen without negligence, (2) the object that caused the harm was under the defendant's control and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the cause.
1319:
The eggshell skull rule is a legal doctrine upheld in some tort law systems, which holds that a tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of damage caused, even where the extent of the damage is due to the unforeseen frailty of the claimant. The eggshell skull rule was recently maintained in
Australia
1219:
had run to help a man into a departing train. The man was carrying a package as he jogged to jump in the train door. The package had fireworks in it. The conductor mishandled the passenger or his package, causing the package to fall. The fireworks slipped and exploded on the ground causing shockwaves
1091:
held that a defendant was not negligent if the damage to the plaintiff were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of his conduct. In the case, a Miss Stone was struck on the head by a cricket ball while standing outside a cricket ground. Finding that no batsman would normally be able hit a cricket
930:
Some jurisdictions narrow the definition down to three elements: duty, breach and proximately caused harm. Some jurisdictions recognize five elements, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages. Despite these differences, definitions of what constitutes negligent conduct remain similar.
888:
through a negligent act. The concept of negligence is linked to the obligation of individuals to exercise reasonable care in their actions and to consider foreseeable harm that their conduct might cause to other people or property. The elements of a negligence claim include the duty to act or refrain
1679:
who makes a negligence claim must prove all four elements of negligence in order to win his or her case. Therefore, if it is highly unlikely that the plaintiff can prove one of the elements, the defendant may request judicial resolution early on, to prevent the case from going to a jury. This can be
1380:
Damages are compensatory in nature. Compensatory damages addresses a plaintiff/claimant's losses (in cases involving physical or mental injury the amount awarded also compensates for pain and suffering). The award should make the plaintiff whole, sufficient to put the plaintiff back in the position
1695:
at trial (the judge in a bench trial, or jury in a jury trial) to decide whether the defendant is or is not liable. Whether the case is resolved with or without trial again depends heavily on the particular facts of the case, and the ability of the parties to frame the issues to the court. The duty
1384:
There are also two other general principles relating to damages. Firstly, the award of damages should take place in the form of a single lump sum payment. Therefore, a defendant should not be required to make periodic payments (however some statutes give exceptions for this). Secondly, the Court is
1047:
Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff/claimant, the matter of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both subjective and objective. The defendant who knowingly (subjective, which is totally based on observation and personal prejudice or
945:
The legal liability of a defendant to a plaintiff is based on the defendant's failure to fulfil a responsibility, recognised by law, of which the plaintiff is the intended beneficiary. The first step in determining the existence of a legally recognised responsibility is the concept of an obligation
1231:
Such disparity of views on the element of remoteness continues to trouble the judiciary. Courts that follow
Cardozo's view have greater control in negligence cases. If the court can find that, as a matter of law, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, the plaintiff will lose his case
1227:
The defendant train company argued it should not be liable as a matter of law, because despite the fact that they employed the employee, who was negligent, his negligence was too remote from the plaintiff's injury. On appeal, the majority of the court agreed, with four judges adopting the reasons,
1066:
Certain jurisdictions, also provide for breaches where professionals, such as doctors, fail to warn of risks associated with medical treatments or procedures. Doctors owe both objective and subjective duties to warn; and breach of either is sufficient to satisfy this element in a court of law. For
1284:
Negligence is different in that the plaintiff must ordinarily prove a pecuniary loss in order to recover damages. In some cases, such as defamation per se, damages may be presumed. Recovery for non-pecuniary losses, such as emotional injury, are normally recoverable only if the plaintiff has also
1276:
As a general rule, plaintiffs in tort litigation can only recover damages if they prove both that they suffered a loss and that the loss was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. When damages are not a necessary element of a tort claim, a plaintiff may prevail without demonstrating a financial
1245:
harbour. The ship leaked oil creating a slick in part of the harbour. The wharf owner asked the ship owner about the danger and was told he could continue his work because the slick would not burn. The wharf owner allowed work to continue on the wharf, which sent sparks onto a rag in the water
1699:
On appeal, depending on the disposition of the case and the question on appeal, the court reviewing a trial court's determination that the defendant was negligent will analyze at least one of the elements of the cause of action to determine if it is properly supported by the facts and law. For
990:
interpreted the biblical ordinance to "love thy neighbour" as a legal requirement to "not harm thy neighbour". He then went on to define neighbour as "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am
1000:
introduced a "threefold test" for a duty of care. Harm must be (1) reasonably foreseeable (2) there must be a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant and (3) it must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability. However, these act as guidelines for the courts in
1098:, Lord Denning said the past should not be viewed through rose coloured spectacles, finding no negligence on the part of medical professionals accused of using contaminated medical jars, since contemporary standards would have indicated only a low possibility of medical jar contamination.
1385:
not concerned with how the plaintiff uses the award of damages. For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $ 100,000 for physical harm, the plaintiff is not required to spend this money on medical bills to restore them to their original position – they can spend this money any way they want.
1080:
it was held that the government had no immunity from suit when they negligently failed to prevent the escape of juvenile offenders who subsequently vandalise a boatyard. In other words, all members of society have a duty to exercise reasonable care toward others and their property. In
1067:
example, the Civil
Liability Act in Queensland outlines a statutory test incorporating both objective and subjective elements. For example, an obstetrician who fails to warn a mother of complications arising from childbirth may be held to have breached their professional duty of care.
1806:
She could have sued the man or the conductor himself, but they did not have as much money as the company. Often, in litigation, where two defendants are equally liable but one is more able to satisfy a judgment, he will be the preferred defendant and is referred to as the "deep
1092:
ball far enough to reach a person standing as far away as was Miss Stone, the court held her claim would fail because the danger was not reasonably or sufficiently foreseeable. As stated in the opinion, "reasonable risk" cannot be judged with the benefit of hindsight. In
1651:
1201:, "liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class." It is said a new question arises of how remote a consequence a person's harm is from another's negligence. We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a '
1792:
The plaintiff's physical injuries were minor and more likely caused by a stampede of travelers on the platform rather than the concussion of the exploding fireworks. These details have not, however, stopped the case from becoming the source of extensive debate in
1416:
Aggravated damages – In contrast to exemplary damages, compensation are given to the plaintiff when the harm is aggravated by the defendant's conduct. For example, the manner of this wrongful act increased the injury by subjecting the plaintiff to humiliation,
1310:
A claimant who has suffered only emotional distress and no pecuniary loss would not recover for negligence. However, courts have recently allowed recovery for a plaintiff to recover for purely emotional distress under certain circumstances. The state courts of
1299:
is limited to a number of 'special' and clearly defined circumstances, often related to the nature of the duty to the plaintiff as between clients and lawyers, financial advisers, and other professions where money is central to the consultative services.
1306:
has been recognized as an actionable tort. Generally, emotional distress damages had to be parasitic. That is, the plaintiff could recover for emotional distress caused by injury, but only if it accompanied a physical or pecuniary injury.
1143:
In order for liability to result from a negligent act or omission, it is necessary to prove not only that the injury was caused by that negligence, but also that there is a legally sufficient connection between the act and the negligence.
1246:
which ignited and created a fire which burnt down the wharf. The Privy
Council determined that the wharf owner 'intervened' in the causal chain, creating a responsibility for the fire which canceled out the liability of the ship owner.
1397:– quantifiable dollar losses suffered from the date of defendant's negligent act (the tort) up to a specified time (proven at trial). Special damage examples include lost wages, medical bills, and damage to property such as one's car.
1549:
requires that any skilled task requires a skilled professional. Such a professional would be expected to be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. Professionals may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings:
1315:
allowed recovery for emotional distress alone – even in the absence of any physical injury, when the defendant physically injures a relative of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff witnesses it.
1484:. However, Article 43 provides exceptions for crimes arising from negligence or exceeding intentionality. These negligent crimes occur despite the defendant's foresight and are the result of negligence,
1048:
view) exposes the plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which any
1273:
Even though there is breach of duty, and the cause of some injury to the defendant, a plaintiff may not recover unless he can prove that the defendant's breach caused a pecuniary injury.
1220:
to travel through the platform, which became the cause of commotion on platform, and as a consequence, the scales fell. Because
Palsgraf was hurt by the falling scales, she sued the
1169:
Asbestos litigations which have been ongoing for decades revolve around the issue of causation. Interwoven with the simple idea of a party causing harm to another are issues on
2648:
1052:
in the same situation would clearly have realized, also breaches that duty. However, whether the test is objective or subjective may depend upon the particular case involved.
1816:
Refers to the situation of "conscious negligence" where the perpetrator performs the act with the confidence that the anticipated outcome will not occur, as opposed to
982:
The
Scottish judge, Lord MacMillan, considered the case to fall within a new category of delict (the Scots law nearest equivalent of tort). The case proceeded to the
889:
from action, breach of that duty, actual and proximate cause of harm, and damages. Someone who suffers loss caused by another's negligence may be able to sue for
1285:
proved a pecuniary loss. Examples of pecuniary loss include medical bills that result from an injury, or repair costs or loss of income due to property damage.
1628:
101:
1833:, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a reasonable person would not do.
3340:
1622:
1303:
241:
1635:
4524:
1088:
983:
4607:
2666:
2101:
960:
1643:
1546:
1370:
in the breach of the duty of care is irrelevant. Once the breach of the duty is established, the only requirement is to compensate the victim.
176:
1288:
The damage may be physical, purely economic, both physical and economic (loss of earnings following a personal injury,) or reputational (in a
1924:
1207:
1664:: Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Ltd (2006) HC; North Shore City Council v Body Corporate ("Sunset Terraces"); Spencer on Byron (2011) SC.
2537:
2114:
1658:
3 NZLR 513; Te Mata
Properties Ltd v Hastings District Council. 1 NZLR 460; Queenstown Lakes DC V Charterhall Trustees Ltd NZSC 116;
1197:
Sometimes factual causation is distinguished from 'legal causation' to avert the danger of defendants being exposed to, in the words of
1103:
1655:
848:
1859:
1492:
by their consequences to be attributed to the perpetrator, the base crime must be committed with intent. Furthermore, concerning the
3950:
3508:
3407:
3219:
3156:
3130:
Vennell, Margaret A. (1977). "The
Essentials of Nuisance: A Discussion of Recent New Zealand Developments in the Tort of Nuisance".
3114:
3089:
2080:
1949:
1591:
1342:
comes down to whether or not a party violated a standard in law meant to protect the public such as a building code or speed limit.
1076:
1010:
3296:
1966:
1366:
for "restoration to the original condition"). Thus, for most purposes connected with the quantification of damages, the degree of
4064:
3933:
3174:
Donoghue v Stevenson and local authorities: A New Zealand perspective - can the tort of negligence be built on shaky foundations?
2689:
1647:
3188:
4519:
3866:
3767:
2903:
2319:
2307:
1480:, enacted on October 19, 1930, specifies in Article 42 that a person can only be punished for a crime if it was committed with
996:
893:
to compensate for their harm. Such loss may include physical injury, harm to property, psychiatric illness, or economic loss.
567:
4026:
3660:
2481:
1675:
The United States generally recognizes four elements to a negligence action: duty, breach, proximate causation and injury. A
1625:
2 NZLR 729, Paxhaven Holdings LId. v. Attorney-General 2 N.Z.L.R. 185 (both on the interrelation of negligence and nuisance)
1381:
he or she was before Defendant's negligent act. Anything more would unlawfully permit a plaintiff to profit from the tort.
2007:
3379:
1042:
1373:
One of the main tests that is posed when deliberating whether a claimant is entitled to compensation for a tort, is the "
4186:
3665:
2052:
357:
4181:
1639:
573:
38:
1017:
Whether a duty of care is owed for psychiatric, as opposed to physical, harm was discussed in the Australian case of
4602:
4156:
3655:
1691:
The elements allow a defendant to test a plaintiff's accusations before trial, as well as providing a guide to the
1612:
1216:
347:
926:
causation: the injury to the plaintiff is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act or omission.
4239:
1496:
or unintended consequences, the perpetrator must have acted with at least a minimal level of negligence, whether
662:
511:
4034:
4016:
2768:
2658:
2546:
2517:
2407:
2283:
2233:
2215:
2175:
2146:
2097:
2089:
1481:
1153:
1094:
695:
679:
246:
206:
3685:
2879:
4409:
4196:
3670:
2883:
2772:
2709:
2662:
2570:
2550:
2521:
2505:
2394:
2339:
2287:
2237:
2219:
2179:
2150:
1237:
1186:
964:
560:
385:
352:
4464:
4449:
2929:
2477:
1467:
1358:
1115:
902:
841:
756:
578:
489:
332:
277:
181:
76:
2586:
2367:
2195:
1706:
whether the court below properly found that the plaintiff could not prove any or all of his or her case.
4568:
4161:
3839:
3650:
1477:
716:
690:
609:
499:
494:
456:
251:
211:
198:
2166:
4289:
3635:
2066:
951:
188:
128:
1181:
4444:
3584:
3501:
1737:
1432:
553:
547:
506:
443:
266:
67:
2208:
Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales; Sheehan v State Rail Authority of New South Wales
1125:
Further establishment of conditions of intention or malice where applicable may apply in cases of
1055:
There is a reduced threshold for the standard of care owed by children. In the Australian case of
27:
Failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances
4259:
3918:
3772:
3757:
3735:
3479:
3459:
3412:
3402:
3277:
3239:
2046:
1757:
1436:
1157:
796:
683:
614:
583:
474:
438:
414:
370:
153:
95:
3346:— Britannica 1911's account of negligence: an interesting historical read, preceding the era of
873:) is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances.
3260:
McLauchlan, William P. (June 1977). "An Empirical Study of the Federal Summary Judgment Rule".
2623:
901:
To successfully pursue a claim of negligence through a lawsuit, a plaintiff must establish the
4597:
4244:
4166:
4004:
3747:
3742:
3695:
3620:
3614:
3454:
3372:
3152:
3110:
3085:
2899:
2796:
2685:
2456:
2315:
2303:
2093:
1945:
1920:
1830:
1652:
South Pacific Manufacturing Co Ltd v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Ltd
1514:
1493:
1489:
1374:
1190:
1049:
834:
741:
736:
726:
721:
537:
516:
380:
326:
313:
261:
221:
955:
established the modern law of negligence, laying the foundations of the duty of care and the
4249:
4216:
3715:
3579:
3574:
3539:
3269:
3231:
3132:
2792:
2446:
2438:
1978:
1772:
1742:
1685:
1533:
1497:
1459:) is defined as the occurrence of a legally foreseen consequence due to a lack of necessary
1452:
1440:
1410:
1198:
1126:
731:
604:
532:
484:
433:
366:
308:
216:
193:
135:
123:
2994:
2949:
2875:
2705:
2566:
2542:
2501:
2485:
2390:
2335:
2279:
2229:
2211:
2171:
2142:
4498:
4471:
4459:
4439:
4373:
4368:
4351:
4331:
4326:
4306:
4171:
4151:
4146:
4049:
4009:
3720:
3645:
3569:
3554:
3474:
3334:
2764:
2513:
2380:
1867:
1538:
1448:
1404:
1400:
1394:
1278:
1202:
1163:
1138:
1083:
1014:(AKR) (1936). This was a landmark case in the development of negligence law in Australia.
976:
968:
967:. May Donoghue and her friend were in a café in Paisley. The friend bought Mrs Donoghue a
408:
337:
320:
2654:
2085:
1001:
establishing a duty of care; much of the principle is still at the discretion of judges.
4575:
4383:
4301:
3890:
3856:
3807:
3792:
3564:
3469:
3449:
3439:
2786:
2451:
2426:
1889:
1747:
1702:
1692:
1173:
bills and compensations, which sometimes drove compensating companies out of business.
1074:, Lord Macmillan declared that "the categories of negligence are never closed"; and in
786:
542:
424:
342:
144:
90:
85:
2741:
Carr, Christopher (May 1974). "Measuring the Pecuniary Loss in Damages for Personal".
1829:
In other words, the breach of the duty caused by the omission to do something which a
4591:
4429:
4388:
4274:
4254:
4226:
4176:
4141:
4115:
4110:
4103:
4054:
3994:
3834:
3824:
3782:
3705:
3700:
3630:
3589:
3513:
3329:
3281:
2964:
1794:
1296:
956:
905:
of negligence. In most jurisdictions there are four elements to a negligence action:
751:
626:
2835:
2810:
2250:
1554:
They were not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed.
4561:
4311:
4279:
4234:
3972:
3967:
3938:
3851:
3829:
3797:
3730:
3710:
3604:
3544:
3534:
3486:
3444:
3422:
3365:
2442:
1732:
1526:
1485:
1460:
940:
885:
804:
791:
781:
746:
700:
286:
1249:
In Australia the concept of remoteness, or proximity, was tested with the case of
923:
damages: as a result of that act or omission, the plaintiff suffers an injury, and
4542:
4483:
4424:
4414:
4211:
4206:
4044:
3945:
3861:
3820:
3787:
3752:
3675:
3599:
3549:
3464:
1752:
1717:
1367:
817:
657:
390:
256:
171:
30:
For the related concept in caregiving entirely outside of a legal context, see
4547:
4476:
4356:
4294:
4039:
3960:
3955:
3913:
3895:
3883:
3844:
3690:
3680:
3640:
3625:
3609:
3559:
3496:
3491:
1723:
1713:
1616:
1312:
1289:
987:
822:
766:
669:
621:
291:
158:
50:
3344:. Vol. 19 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 342–343.
1967:"A Tangled Webb – Reexamining the Role of Duty in Indiana Negligence Actions"
1541:(i.e. the violation resulted in injury to the plaintiff's person or property)
920:
breach: the defendant breaches that duty through an act or culpable omission,
4454:
4419:
4361:
4336:
4201:
4098:
4086:
4071:
4059:
3987:
3905:
3878:
3762:
1676:
1356:
Damages place a monetary value on the harm done, following the principle of
1170:
914:
910:
800:
2460:
1021:(2002). Determining a duty for mental harm has now been subsumed into the
4503:
4488:
4191:
4076:
3873:
3417:
1817:
1762:
1681:
1472:
991:
directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question."
776:
636:
399:
296:
118:
17:
4393:
4341:
4321:
4269:
4081:
3999:
3815:
3777:
3725:
3243:
3189:"Chicken Little at the Reference Desk: The Myth of Librarian Liability"
1767:
1351:
1212:
972:
890:
631:
599:
479:
301:
31:
2139:
Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd
1019:
Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd
4493:
4346:
4091:
3982:
3977:
3923:
3594:
1242:
674:
641:
3235:
1439:
No. 5237, which took effect on June 1, 2005, "criminal negligence" (
3273:
2498:
Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najem
4434:
4378:
4284:
4125:
3928:
3427:
1982:
1363:
1221:
946:
or duty. In the tort of negligence the term used is duty of care
865:
451:
3333:
4316:
4264:
4120:
3518:
3434:
877:
465:
58:
3361:
1940:
Deakin, Simon F.; Markesinis, B.S.; Johnston, Angus C. (2003).
3388:
1566:
2722:
Blanchard, Sadie (2022). "Nominal Damages as Vindication".
1529:(i.e. a legal duty to exercise "ordinary care and skill")
1587:
3357:
1634:
Cases regarding negligence in building construction:
3220:"Thoughts on Directed Verdicts and Summary Judgments"
2115:"Example of the Development of the Law of Negligence"
1281:
along with any other remedy available under the law.
1025:
in New South Wales. The application of Part 3 of the
2677:
2675:
2649:
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co
1944:(5 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 218.
4512:
4402:
4225:
4134:
4025:
3904:
3806:
3527:
3395:
2532:
2530:
2161:
2159:
1224:company who employed the conductor for negligence.
3082:The law of defamation in Australia and New Zealand
1470:, as a rule, requires a person to have acted with
1008:was used as a persuasive precedent in the case of
3297:"Standards of Review – Looking beyond the Labels"
2965:"Taksirle Ölüme Sebebiyet Verme Suçu (TCK m. 85)"
3016:Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Singh J, G.P. (ed.),
2972:Ä°stanbul Ăśniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler EnstitĂĽsĂĽ
2431:Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)
1476:, for an act to be punishable. Comparably, the
2915:Mehmet Hakan Hakeri, M. H. H., İhmali Suçlar,
2041:. Dublin 12: Gill & Macmillan. p. 19.
1592:sources that evaluate within a broader context
1295:In English law, the right to claim for purely
884:pertains to harm caused by the violation of a
3373:
3255:
3253:
1615:1 NZLR 519 (the court differentiated between
842:
8:
2387:Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer
1629:Mainguard Packaging Ltd v Hilton Haulage Ltd
102:Intentional infliction of emotional distress
2134:
2132:
1623:Clearlite Holdings Ltd v Auckland City Corp
1447:) refers to a person’s failure to act when
3380:
3366:
3358:
3068:Vinitha Ashok v Lakshmi Hospital & Ors
1519:Ratanlal & Dhirajlal: The Law of Torts
849:
835:
242:Negligent infliction of emotional distress
45:
3151:(4th ed.). LexisNexis. p. 245.
2450:
1866:. Oxford University Press. Archived from
1636:Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd
4525:History of the American legal profession
3084:. Sydney: Federation Press. p. 10.
1211:the judge decided that the defendant, a
1180:
3149:Butterworths Student Companion Contract
2474:Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez
1851:
1785:
1235:Remoteness takes another form, seen in
764:
708:
649:
591:
524:
464:
423:
398:
365:
276:
231:
143:
110:
75:
57:
2044:
2001:
1999:
1644:Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson
1031:Wicks v SRA (NSW); Sheehan v SRA (NSW)
3176:. University of the West of Scotland.
3051:
3049:
2611:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
2538:March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd
1919:. New York: Oxford University Press.
1582:focuses too much on specific examples
1208:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
7:
3224:The University of Chicago Law Review
3107:Butterworths Student Companion Torts
963:), have been adopted throughout the
913:has a duty to others, including the
1684:, motion to dismiss, or motion for
1104:United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
994:In England the more recent case of
1656:Invercargill City Council v Hamlin
25:
3509:Restitution and unjust enrichment
2840:LII / Legal Information Institute
2815:LII / Legal Information Institute
2601:(1931) 255 N.Y. 170, 174 N.E. 441
2226:Koehler v Cerebos (Australia) Ltd
2081:Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
2008:"The Five Elements of Negligence"
1177:Legal causation (proximate cause)
1011:Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
4556:
4555:
4541:
3218:Currie, David P. (Autumn 1977).
2860:Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
1942:Markesinis and Deakin's Tort Law
1716:
1648:Brown v Heathcote County Council
1571:
1241:. The Wagon Mound was a ship in
1148:Factual causation (actual cause)
816:
4520:History of the legal profession
2310:(NSW, Australia); see also
2104:(on appeal from Australia).
1532:A violation of the appropriate
1517:follows the approach stated in
1277:injury, potentially recovering
997:Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
568:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
4608:Legal doctrines and principles
3056:Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab
3041:Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab
3020:(24th. ed.), Butterworths
2443:10.1080/08998280.2006.11928212
2251:"Breach of Duty in Negligence"
2006:Owen, David G. (Summer 2007).
1521:, laying down three elements:
959:principle which, (through the
917:, to exercise reasonable care,
1:
2995:"TĂĽrk Ceza Kanunu'nda Taksir"
2948:(in Italian) (2nd ed.).
1112:For the rule in the U.S., see
1043:Breach of duty in English law
897:Elements of negligence claims
678:(term used for torts in some
3262:The Journal of Legal Studies
3109:(4th ed.). LexisNexis.
2944:Mantovani, Ferrando (2007).
2790:, 68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968) and
1107:159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947)
3043:S.C. 0547, per R.C. Lahoti.
2797:Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
2411:(1954) 2 AER 131; see also
2276:Wyong Shire Council v Shirt
1965:Boehm, Theodore R. (2003).
1640:Scott Group Ltd v McFarlane
1513:With regard to negligence,
1162:For a defendant to be held
979:action against Stevenson).
574:Joint and several liability
39:Negligence (disambiguation)
4624:
4187:International legal theory
3666:International slavery laws
3661:International human rights
3656:International criminal law
3080:Gillooly, Michael (1998).
2993:Çiftçioğlu, Cengiz Topel.
2946:Principi di diritto penale
2669: (on appeal from NSW).
2599:Ultramares Corp. v. Touche
2413:Glasgow Corporation v Muir
2100:49 (21 October 1935),
1864:Oxford Living Dictionaries
1613:Balfour v Attorney-General
1349:
1151:
1136:
1077:Dorset Yacht v Home Office
1040:
1029:(NSW) was demonstrated in
938:
348:Comparative responsibility
36:
29:
4535:
4240:Administration of justice
3295:Hofer, Ronald R. (1990).
3147:Walker, Campbell (2004).
2427:"Malice/gross negligence"
1773:Negligence in English Law
663:Non-economic damages caps
4017:Basic structure doctrine
3867:Natural and legal rights
3748:Public international law
3187:Healey, Paul D. (1995).
2900:[2003] NSWCA 208
2800:, 27 Cal. 3d 916 (1980).
2686:[1998] NSWSC 779
2583:Civil Liability Act 2005
2425:Thornton, R. G. (2006).
2408:Roe v Minister of Health
2364:Civil Liability Act 2003
2316:[2006] NSWCA 222
2304:[2005] NSWCA 151
2192:Civil Liability Act 2002
2094:[1935] UKPCHCA 1
2051:: CS1 maint: location (
1154:Causation in English law
1095:Roe v Minister of Health
1027:Civil Liability Act 2002
1023:Civil Liability Act 2002
696:Private attorney general
650:Other topics in tort law
278:Principles of negligence
207:Alienation of affections
4197:Principle of typicality
3671:International trade law
3341:Encyclopædia Britannica
2963:Ăśnal, ErtuÄźrul (2015).
2724:George Mason Law Review
2665:709 (25 May 1966),
2624:"Palsgraf v Long_Is_RR"
1547:professional negligence
1545:The Indian approach to
1238:The Wagon Mound (No. 2)
1185:Negligence can lead to
1121:Intention and/or malice
561:Volenti non fit injuria
386:Ultrahazardous activity
353:Contributory negligence
2655:[1966] UKPC 10
2086:[1935] UKPC 62
1456:
1451:, while "negligence" (
1444:
1359:restitutio in integrum
1194:
1187:this sort of collision
1116:Calculus of negligence
579:Market share liability
512:Shopkeeper's privilege
490:Statute of limitations
333:Restitutio ad integrum
182:Intrusion on seclusion
77:Trespass to the person
4192:Principle of legality
3951:Delegated legislation
3651:Intellectual property
3352:Donoghue v. Stevenson
3172:French, Mike (2012).
3105:McLay, Geoff (2003).
2906:(NSW, Australia).
2876:[1981] HCA 72
2743:The Modern Law Review
2706:[2008] HCA 40
2692:(NSW, Australia).
2567:[2013] HCA 19
2543:[1991] HCA 12
2502:[2009] HCA 48
2391:[2007] HCA 42
2338: (7 March 1966),
2336:[1966] HCA 13
2322:(NSW, Australia).
2286:40 (1 May 1980),
2280:[1980] HCA 12
2230:[2005] HCA 15
2212:[2010] HCA 22
2172:[1984] HCA 52
2143:[2002] HCA 35
1915:Feinman, Jay (2010).
1184:
691:Conflict of tort laws
457:Tortious interference
212:Criminal conversation
199:Malicious prosecution
4410:Barristers' chambers
4352:Legal representation
4290:Justice of the peace
3636:Financial regulation
3301:Marquette Law Review
2896:State of NSW v Riley
2765:[1977] HCA 8
2514:[2012] HCA 5
2067:Donoghue v Stevenson
2037:Quill, Eoin (2014).
1588:improve this section
1515:Indian jurisprudence
1072:Donoghue v Stevenson
1006:Donoghue v Stevenson
952:Donoghue v Stevenson
876:Within the scope of
189:Breach of confidence
37:For other uses, see
4445:Election commission
4157:Expressive function
3686:Landlord–tenant law
3585:Consumer protection
3193:Law Library Journal
2952:. pp. 159–163.
2919:, 2(4), pp. 137-169
2917:Ceza Hukuku Dergisi
2836:"negligence per se"
2811:"Res Ipsa Loquitur"
2651:(Wagon Mound No. 2)
2510:Strong v Woolworths
2312:Drinkwater v Howart
1818:intentional conduct
1738:Criminal negligence
1433:Swiss Criminal Code
1189:: a train wreck at
684:mixed legal systems
554:Respondeat superior
548:Vicarious liability
507:Defence of property
444:Insurance bad faith
358:Attractive nuisance
177:Invasion of privacy
4403:Legal institutions
4270:Lawsuit/Litigation
4260:Dispute resolution
4065:Catholic canon law
3773:State of emergency
3736:Will and testament
3460:Law of obligations
3413:Constitutional law
3403:Administrative law
3335:"Negligence"
2872:Todorovic v Waller
2613:(1928) 162 N.E. 99
2385:A.C. 850 see also
2012:Hofstra Law Review
1971:Indiana Law Review
1894:Britannica English
1758:Medical negligence
1654:2 NZLR 282 ;
1500:or inadvertently.
1478:Italian Penal Code
1437:Turkish Penal Code
1304:Emotional distress
1195:
1158:Breaking the chain
584:Transferred intent
475:Assumption of risk
439:Restraint of trade
415:Rylands v Fletcher
247:Employment-related
96:False imprisonment
4603:Law of negligence
4585:
4584:
4245:Constitutionalism
4167:Law and economics
4005:Act of parliament
3743:Product liability
3696:Legal archaeology
3621:Environmental law
3615:Entertainment law
3455:International law
2702:Imbree v McNeilly
2682:Kavanagh v Akhtar
2352:Mullin v Richards
2300:Doubleday v Kelly
1926:978-0-19-539513-6
1896:. Merriam Webster
1831:reasonable person
1609:
1608:
1468:French penal code
1375:reasonable person
1333:Res ipsa loquitur
1328:Special doctrines
1322:Kavanagh v Akhtar
1259:Imbree v McNeilly
1255:Kavanagh v Akhtar
1191:Gare Montparnasse
1061:Mullin v Richards
1050:reasonable person
969:ginger beer float
859:
858:
732:England and Wales
687:
538:Last clear chance
533:Intentional torts
517:Neutral reportage
500:Defense of others
448:
381:Product liability
327:Res ipsa loquitur
314:Reasonable person
222:Breach of promise
71:
16:(Redirected from
4615:
4560:
4559:
4558:
4546:
4545:
4369:Question of fact
4250:Criminal justice
3580:Construction law
3575:Conflict of laws
3540:Agricultural law
3382:
3375:
3368:
3359:
3345:
3337:
3316:
3315:
3313:
3311:
3292:
3286:
3285:
3257:
3248:
3247:
3215:
3209:
3208:
3206:
3204:
3184:
3178:
3177:
3169:
3163:
3162:
3144:
3138:
3137:
3133:Otago Law Review
3127:
3121:
3120:
3102:
3096:
3095:
3077:
3071:
3070:4 L.R.I.292 at .
3065:
3059:
3053:
3044:
3038:
3032:
3028:
3022:
3021:
3018:The Law of Torts
3013:
3007:
3006:
3004:
3002:
2990:
2984:
2983:
2981:
2979:
2969:
2960:
2954:
2953:
2941:
2935:
2926:
2920:
2913:
2907:
2893:
2887:
2869:
2863:
2862:(1856) Ex Ch 781
2857:
2851:
2850:
2848:
2846:
2832:
2826:
2825:
2823:
2821:
2807:
2801:
2782:
2776:
2757:
2751:
2750:
2738:
2732:
2731:
2719:
2713:
2699:
2693:
2679:
2670:
2645:
2639:
2638:
2636:
2634:
2628:www.nycourts.gov
2620:
2614:
2608:
2602:
2596:
2590:
2580:
2574:
2560:
2554:
2534:
2525:
2495:
2489:
2471:
2465:
2464:
2454:
2422:
2416:
2415:(1943) 2 AER 44.
2404:
2398:
2377:
2371:
2361:
2355:
2349:
2343:
2332:McHale v Watson
2329:
2323:
2297:
2291:
2273:
2267:
2266:
2264:
2262:
2247:
2241:
2205:
2199:
2189:
2183:
2167:Jaensch v Coffey
2163:
2154:
2136:
2127:
2125:
2119:
2111:
2105:
2077:
2071:
2063:
2057:
2056:
2050:
2042:
2039:Torts In Ireland
2034:
2028:
2027:
2025:
2023:
2003:
1994:
1993:
1991:
1989:
1962:
1956:
1955:
1937:
1931:
1930:
1912:
1906:
1905:
1903:
1901:
1886:
1880:
1879:
1877:
1875:
1870:on 6 August 2017
1856:
1834:
1827:
1821:
1814:
1808:
1804:
1798:
1790:
1743:Gross negligence
1726:
1721:
1720:
1686:summary judgment
1604:
1601:
1595:
1575:
1574:
1567:
1534:standard of care
1411:Punitive damages
1251:Jaensch v Coffey
1127:gross negligence
851:
844:
837:
821:
820:
677:
446:
309:Standard of care
194:Abuse of process
104:
65:
46:
21:
4623:
4622:
4618:
4617:
4616:
4614:
4613:
4612:
4588:
4587:
4586:
4581:
4554:
4540:
4531:
4508:
4499:Political party
4472:Legal education
4460:Law enforcement
4440:Court of equity
4398:
4374:Question of law
4327:Practice of law
4307:Judicial review
4221:
4172:Legal formalism
4152:Comparative law
4147:Contract theory
4130:
4050:Legal pluralism
4021:
4010:Act of Congress
3934:Executive order
3900:
3802:
3721:Nationality law
3646:Immigration law
3570:Competition law
3523:
3391:
3386:
3328:
3325:
3320:
3319:
3309:
3307:
3294:
3293:
3289:
3259:
3258:
3251:
3236:10.2307/1599201
3217:
3216:
3212:
3202:
3200:
3186:
3185:
3181:
3171:
3170:
3166:
3159:
3146:
3145:
3141:
3129:
3128:
3124:
3117:
3104:
3103:
3099:
3092:
3079:
3078:
3074:
3066:
3062:
3054:
3047:
3039:
3035:
3029:
3025:
3015:
3014:
3010:
3000:
2998:
2992:
2991:
2987:
2977:
2975:
2967:
2962:
2961:
2957:
2943:
2942:
2938:
2927:
2923:
2914:
2910:
2904:Court of Appeal
2894:
2890:
2870:
2866:
2858:
2854:
2844:
2842:
2834:
2833:
2829:
2819:
2817:
2809:
2808:
2804:
2783:
2779:
2761:Sharman v Evans
2758:
2754:
2740:
2739:
2735:
2721:
2720:
2716:
2700:
2696:
2680:
2673:
2646:
2642:
2632:
2630:
2622:
2621:
2617:
2609:
2605:
2597:
2593:
2581:
2577:
2561:
2557:
2535:
2528:
2496:
2492:
2486:LawCite records
2480:303; (1976) 50
2472:
2468:
2424:
2423:
2419:
2405:
2401:
2381:Bolton v. Stone
2378:
2374:
2362:
2358:
2350:
2346:
2330:
2326:
2320:Court of Appeal
2308:Court of Appeal
2298:
2294:
2274:
2270:
2260:
2258:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2223:
2206:
2202:
2190:
2186:
2164:
2157:
2137:
2130:
2117:
2113:
2112:
2108:
2078:
2074:
2064:
2060:
2043:
2036:
2035:
2031:
2021:
2019:
2005:
2004:
1997:
1987:
1985:
1964:
1963:
1959:
1952:
1939:
1938:
1934:
1927:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1899:
1897:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1873:
1871:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1848:
1843:
1838:
1837:
1828:
1824:
1815:
1811:
1805:
1801:
1791:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1722:
1715:
1712:
1673:
1662:leaky buildings
1619:and negligence)
1605:
1599:
1596:
1585:
1576:
1572:
1565:
1511:
1506:
1449:required by law
1429:
1424:
1405:nominal damages
1401:General damages
1395:Special damages
1389:Types of damage
1354:
1348:
1330:
1320:in the case of
1279:nominal damages
1271:
1203:proximate cause
1179:
1160:
1150:
1141:
1139:Causation (law)
1135:
1123:
1084:Bolton v. Stone
1057:McHale v Watson
1045:
1039:
943:
937:
899:
855:
815:
709:By jurisdiction
409:Public nuisance
338:Rescue doctrine
321:Proximate cause
233:Negligent torts
145:Dignitary torts
100:
42:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
4621:
4619:
4611:
4610:
4605:
4600:
4590:
4589:
4583:
4582:
4580:
4579:
4572:
4565:
4551:
4548:Law portal
4536:
4533:
4532:
4530:
4529:
4528:
4527:
4516:
4514:
4510:
4509:
4507:
4506:
4501:
4496:
4491:
4486:
4481:
4480:
4479:
4469:
4468:
4467:
4457:
4452:
4447:
4442:
4437:
4432:
4427:
4422:
4417:
4412:
4406:
4404:
4400:
4399:
4397:
4396:
4391:
4386:
4384:Trial advocacy
4381:
4376:
4371:
4366:
4365:
4364:
4359:
4354:
4349:
4344:
4339:
4334:
4324:
4319:
4314:
4309:
4304:
4299:
4298:
4297:
4292:
4282:
4277:
4272:
4267:
4262:
4257:
4252:
4247:
4242:
4237:
4231:
4229:
4223:
4222:
4220:
4219:
4214:
4209:
4204:
4199:
4194:
4189:
4184:
4179:
4174:
4169:
4164:
4159:
4154:
4149:
4144:
4138:
4136:
4132:
4131:
4129:
4128:
4123:
4118:
4113:
4108:
4107:
4106:
4096:
4095:
4094:
4089:
4084:
4079:
4074:
4069:
4068:
4067:
4052:
4047:
4042:
4037:
4031:
4029:
4023:
4022:
4020:
4019:
4014:
4013:
4012:
4007:
4002:
3992:
3991:
3990:
3980:
3975:
3970:
3965:
3964:
3963:
3958:
3953:
3943:
3942:
3941:
3936:
3931:
3921:
3916:
3914:Ballot measure
3910:
3908:
3902:
3901:
3899:
3898:
3893:
3891:Legal treatise
3888:
3887:
3886:
3881:
3871:
3870:
3869:
3859:
3857:Letters patent
3854:
3849:
3848:
3847:
3837:
3832:
3827:
3818:
3812:
3810:
3808:Sources of law
3804:
3803:
3801:
3800:
3795:
3793:Unenforced law
3790:
3785:
3780:
3775:
3770:
3765:
3760:
3755:
3750:
3745:
3740:
3739:
3738:
3733:
3723:
3718:
3713:
3708:
3703:
3698:
3693:
3688:
3683:
3678:
3673:
3668:
3663:
3658:
3653:
3648:
3643:
3638:
3633:
3628:
3623:
3618:
3612:
3607:
3602:
3597:
3592:
3587:
3582:
3577:
3572:
3567:
3565:Commercial law
3562:
3557:
3552:
3547:
3542:
3537:
3531:
3529:
3525:
3524:
3522:
3521:
3516:
3511:
3506:
3505:
3504:
3494:
3489:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3477:
3467:
3462:
3457:
3452:
3447:
3442:
3437:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3420:
3415:
3410:
3405:
3399:
3397:
3393:
3392:
3387:
3385:
3384:
3377:
3370:
3362:
3356:
3355:
3332:, ed. (1911).
3330:Chisholm, Hugh
3324:
3323:External links
3321:
3318:
3317:
3287:
3274:10.1086/467581
3268:(2): 427–459.
3249:
3210:
3179:
3164:
3157:
3139:
3122:
3115:
3097:
3090:
3072:
3060:
3045:
3033:
3023:
3008:
2985:
2955:
2936:
2928:Article 121-3
2921:
2908:
2888:
2864:
2852:
2827:
2802:
2787:Dillon v. Legg
2777:
2752:
2733:
2714:
2694:
2671:
2640:
2615:
2603:
2591:
2575:
2555:
2526:
2490:
2466:
2437:(4): 417–418.
2417:
2399:
2372:
2356:
2344:
2324:
2292:
2268:
2257:. 18 July 2019
2242:
2200:
2184:
2155:
2128:
2122:law.uwa.edu.au
2106:
2072:
2058:
2029:
1995:
1957:
1950:
1932:
1925:
1907:
1881:
1850:
1849:
1847:
1844:
1842:
1839:
1836:
1835:
1822:
1809:
1799:
1784:
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1775:
1770:
1765:
1760:
1755:
1750:
1748:Intentionality
1745:
1740:
1735:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1711:
1708:
1693:finder of fact
1672:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1632:
1626:
1620:
1607:
1606:
1579:
1577:
1570:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1543:
1542:
1536:
1530:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1502:
1428:
1425:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1408:
1398:
1391:
1390:
1350:Main article:
1347:
1344:
1329:
1326:
1270:
1267:
1178:
1175:
1149:
1146:
1137:Main article:
1134:
1131:
1122:
1119:
1109:
1108:
1089:House of Lords
1038:
1037:Breach of duty
1035:
1004:In Australia,
984:House of Lords
939:Main article:
936:
933:
928:
927:
924:
921:
918:
898:
895:
857:
856:
854:
853:
846:
839:
831:
828:
827:
826:
825:
823:Law portal
810:
809:
808:
807:
794:
789:
784:
779:
771:
770:
762:
761:
760:
759:
754:
749:
744:
739:
737:European Union
734:
729:
724:
719:
711:
710:
706:
705:
704:
703:
698:
693:
688:
672:
667:
666:
665:
652:
651:
647:
646:
645:
644:
639:
634:
629:
624:
619:
618:
617:
612:
607:
594:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
581:
576:
571:
564:
557:
550:
545:
543:Eggshell skull
540:
535:
527:
526:
522:
521:
520:
519:
514:
509:
504:
503:
502:
492:
487:
482:
477:
469:
468:
462:
461:
460:
459:
454:
449:
447:(American law)
441:
436:
428:
427:
425:Economic torts
421:
420:
419:
418:
411:
403:
402:
396:
395:
394:
393:
388:
383:
375:
374:
363:
362:
361:
360:
355:
350:
345:
343:Duty to rescue
340:
335:
330:
323:
318:
317:
316:
306:
305:
304:
299:
294:
281:
280:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
264:
254:
249:
244:
236:
235:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
219:
214:
209:
201:
196:
191:
186:
185:
184:
174:
169:
168:
167:
164:
156:
148:
147:
141:
140:
139:
138:
133:
132:
131:
126:
113:
112:
111:Property torts
108:
107:
106:
105:
98:
93:
88:
80:
79:
73:
72:
62:
61:
55:
54:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4620:
4609:
4606:
4604:
4601:
4599:
4596:
4595:
4593:
4578:
4577:
4573:
4571:
4570:
4566:
4564:
4563:
4552:
4550:
4549:
4544:
4538:
4537:
4534:
4526:
4523:
4522:
4521:
4518:
4517:
4515:
4511:
4505:
4502:
4500:
4497:
4495:
4492:
4490:
4487:
4485:
4482:
4478:
4475:
4474:
4473:
4470:
4466:
4463:
4462:
4461:
4458:
4456:
4453:
4451:
4448:
4446:
4443:
4441:
4438:
4436:
4433:
4431:
4430:Civil society
4428:
4426:
4423:
4421:
4418:
4416:
4413:
4411:
4408:
4407:
4405:
4401:
4395:
4392:
4390:
4389:Trier of fact
4387:
4385:
4382:
4380:
4377:
4375:
4372:
4370:
4367:
4363:
4360:
4358:
4355:
4353:
4350:
4348:
4345:
4343:
4340:
4338:
4335:
4333:
4330:
4329:
4328:
4325:
4323:
4320:
4318:
4315:
4313:
4310:
4308:
4305:
4303:
4300:
4296:
4293:
4291:
4288:
4287:
4286:
4283:
4281:
4278:
4276:
4275:Legal opinion
4273:
4271:
4268:
4266:
4263:
4261:
4258:
4256:
4255:Court-martial
4253:
4251:
4248:
4246:
4243:
4241:
4238:
4236:
4233:
4232:
4230:
4228:
4227:Jurisprudence
4224:
4218:
4215:
4213:
4210:
4208:
4205:
4203:
4200:
4198:
4195:
4193:
4190:
4188:
4185:
4183:
4180:
4178:
4175:
4173:
4170:
4168:
4165:
4163:
4160:
4158:
4155:
4153:
4150:
4148:
4145:
4143:
4140:
4139:
4137:
4133:
4127:
4124:
4122:
4119:
4117:
4116:Statutory law
4114:
4112:
4111:Socialist law
4109:
4105:
4104:Byzantine law
4102:
4101:
4100:
4097:
4093:
4090:
4088:
4085:
4083:
4080:
4078:
4075:
4073:
4070:
4066:
4063:
4062:
4061:
4058:
4057:
4056:
4055:Religious law
4053:
4051:
4048:
4046:
4043:
4041:
4038:
4036:
4033:
4032:
4030:
4028:
4027:Legal systems
4024:
4018:
4015:
4011:
4008:
4006:
4003:
4001:
3998:
3997:
3996:
3995:Statutory law
3993:
3989:
3986:
3985:
3984:
3981:
3979:
3976:
3974:
3971:
3969:
3966:
3962:
3959:
3957:
3954:
3952:
3949:
3948:
3947:
3944:
3940:
3937:
3935:
3932:
3930:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3922:
3920:
3917:
3915:
3912:
3911:
3909:
3907:
3903:
3897:
3894:
3892:
3889:
3885:
3882:
3880:
3877:
3876:
3875:
3872:
3868:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3860:
3858:
3855:
3853:
3850:
3846:
3843:
3842:
3841:
3838:
3836:
3833:
3831:
3828:
3826:
3825:Statutory law
3822:
3819:
3817:
3814:
3813:
3811:
3809:
3805:
3799:
3796:
3794:
3791:
3789:
3786:
3784:
3783:Transport law
3781:
3779:
3776:
3774:
3771:
3769:
3766:
3764:
3761:
3759:
3756:
3754:
3751:
3749:
3746:
3744:
3741:
3737:
3734:
3732:
3729:
3728:
3727:
3724:
3722:
3719:
3717:
3714:
3712:
3709:
3707:
3704:
3702:
3701:Legal fiction
3699:
3697:
3694:
3692:
3689:
3687:
3684:
3682:
3679:
3677:
3674:
3672:
3669:
3667:
3664:
3662:
3659:
3657:
3654:
3652:
3649:
3647:
3644:
3642:
3639:
3637:
3634:
3632:
3631:Financial law
3629:
3627:
3624:
3622:
3619:
3616:
3613:
3611:
3608:
3606:
3603:
3601:
3598:
3596:
3593:
3591:
3590:Corporate law
3588:
3586:
3583:
3581:
3578:
3576:
3573:
3571:
3568:
3566:
3563:
3561:
3558:
3556:
3553:
3551:
3548:
3546:
3543:
3541:
3538:
3536:
3533:
3532:
3530:
3526:
3520:
3517:
3515:
3514:Statutory law
3512:
3510:
3507:
3503:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3495:
3493:
3490:
3488:
3485:
3481:
3478:
3476:
3473:
3472:
3471:
3468:
3466:
3463:
3461:
3458:
3456:
3453:
3451:
3448:
3446:
3443:
3441:
3438:
3436:
3433:
3429:
3426:
3425:
3424:
3421:
3419:
3416:
3414:
3411:
3409:
3406:
3404:
3401:
3400:
3398:
3396:Core subjects
3394:
3390:
3383:
3378:
3376:
3371:
3369:
3364:
3363:
3360:
3353:
3349:
3343:
3342:
3336:
3331:
3327:
3326:
3322:
3306:
3302:
3298:
3291:
3288:
3283:
3279:
3275:
3271:
3267:
3263:
3256:
3254:
3250:
3245:
3241:
3237:
3233:
3229:
3225:
3221:
3214:
3211:
3198:
3194:
3190:
3183:
3180:
3175:
3168:
3165:
3160:
3158:0-408-71770-X
3154:
3150:
3143:
3140:
3135:
3134:
3126:
3123:
3118:
3116:0-408-71686-X
3112:
3108:
3101:
3098:
3093:
3091:9781862873001
3087:
3083:
3076:
3073:
3069:
3064:
3061:
3057:
3052:
3050:
3046:
3042:
3037:
3034:
3027:
3024:
3019:
3012:
3009:
2997:. p. 320
2996:
2989:
2986:
2973:
2966:
2959:
2956:
2951:
2947:
2940:
2937:
2933:
2932:
2925:
2922:
2918:
2912:
2909:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2892:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2878:, (1981) 150
2877:
2873:
2868:
2865:
2861:
2856:
2853:
2841:
2837:
2831:
2828:
2816:
2812:
2806:
2803:
2799:
2798:
2794:
2789:
2788:
2781:
2778:
2774:
2770:
2767:, (1977) 138
2766:
2762:
2756:
2753:
2748:
2744:
2737:
2734:
2729:
2725:
2718:
2715:
2711:
2707:
2703:
2698:
2695:
2691:
2690:Supreme Court
2687:
2683:
2678:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2667:Privy Council
2664:
2660:
2656:
2652:
2650:
2644:
2641:
2629:
2625:
2619:
2616:
2612:
2607:
2604:
2600:
2595:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2579:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2563:Wallace v Kam
2559:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2545:, (1991) 171
2544:
2540:
2539:
2533:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2516:, (2012) 246
2515:
2511:
2508:(Australia);
2507:
2503:
2499:
2494:
2491:
2487:
2483:
2479:
2475:
2470:
2467:
2462:
2458:
2453:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2421:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2409:
2403:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2382:
2376:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2360:
2357:
2353:
2348:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2328:
2325:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2296:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2282:, (1980) 146
2281:
2277:
2272:
2269:
2256:
2255:IPSA LOQUITUR
2252:
2246:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2232:, (2005) 222
2231:
2227:
2221:
2217:
2214:, (2010) 241
2213:
2209:
2204:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2188:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2174:, (1984) 155
2173:
2169:
2168:
2162:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2145:, (2002) 211
2144:
2140:
2135:
2133:
2129:
2123:
2116:
2110:
2107:
2103:
2102:Privy Council
2099:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2076:
2073:
2069:
2068:
2062:
2059:
2054:
2048:
2040:
2033:
2030:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2002:
2000:
1996:
1984:
1983:10.18060/3628
1980:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1961:
1958:
1953:
1951:9780199257119
1947:
1943:
1936:
1933:
1928:
1922:
1918:
1911:
1908:
1895:
1891:
1885:
1882:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1855:
1852:
1845:
1840:
1832:
1826:
1823:
1819:
1813:
1810:
1803:
1800:
1796:
1789:
1786:
1779:
1774:
1771:
1769:
1766:
1764:
1761:
1759:
1756:
1754:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1744:
1741:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1719:
1714:
1709:
1707:
1705:
1704:
1697:
1694:
1689:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1671:United States
1670:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1621:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1603:
1593:
1589:
1583:
1580:This section
1578:
1569:
1568:
1562:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1531:
1528:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1520:
1516:
1508:
1503:
1501:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1469:
1464:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1426:
1421:
1415:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1396:
1393:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1376:
1371:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1353:
1345:
1343:
1341:
1336:
1334:
1327:
1325:
1323:
1317:
1314:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1298:
1297:economic loss
1293:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1280:
1274:
1268:
1266:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1223:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1204:
1200:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1176:
1174:
1172:
1167:
1165:
1159:
1155:
1147:
1145:
1140:
1132:
1130:
1128:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1097:
1096:
1090:
1087:(1951), the
1086:
1085:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1053:
1051:
1044:
1036:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1002:
999:
998:
992:
989:
985:
980:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
961:Privy Council
958:
954:
953:
947:
942:
934:
932:
925:
922:
919:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
904:
896:
894:
892:
887:
883:
879:
874:
872:
871:
867:
863:
852:
847:
845:
840:
838:
833:
832:
830:
829:
824:
819:
814:
813:
812:
811:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
790:
788:
785:
783:
780:
778:
775:
774:
773:
772:
768:
763:
758:
757:United States
755:
753:
750:
748:
745:
743:
740:
738:
735:
733:
730:
728:
725:
723:
720:
718:
715:
714:
713:
712:
707:
702:
699:
697:
694:
692:
689:
685:
681:
676:
673:
671:
668:
664:
661:
660:
659:
656:
655:
654:
653:
648:
643:
640:
638:
635:
633:
630:
628:
625:
623:
620:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
602:
601:
598:
597:
596:
595:
590:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
569:
565:
563:
562:
558:
556:
555:
551:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
530:
529:
528:
523:
518:
515:
513:
510:
508:
505:
501:
498:
497:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
476:
473:
472:
471:
470:
467:
463:
458:
455:
453:
450:
445:
442:
440:
437:
435:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
422:
417:
416:
412:
410:
407:
406:
405:
404:
401:
397:
392:
389:
387:
384:
382:
379:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
359:
356:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
328:
324:
322:
319:
315:
312:
311:
310:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
293:
290:
289:
288:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
275:
268:
265:
263:
260:
259:
258:
255:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
204:
203:Sexual torts
202:
200:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:
178:
175:
173:
170:
165:
162:
161:
160:
157:
155:
154:Appropriation
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
142:
137:
134:
130:
127:
125:
122:
121:
120:
117:
116:
115:
114:
109:
103:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
83:
82:
81:
78:
74:
69:
64:
63:
60:
56:
52:
48:
47:
44:
40:
33:
19:
4574:
4567:
4553:
4539:
4312:Jurisdiction
4280:Legal remedy
4235:Adjudication
4135:Legal theory
3973:Ratification
3968:Promulgation
3939:Proclamation
3919:Codification
3852:Human rights
3840:Divine right
3830:Constitution
3798:Women in law
3716:Military law
3711:Marriage law
3706:Maritime law
3605:Election law
3545:Aviation law
3535:Abortion law
3487:Property law
3423:Criminal law
3351:
3347:
3339:
3310:22 September
3308:. Retrieved
3304:
3300:
3290:
3265:
3261:
3230:(1): 72–79.
3227:
3223:
3213:
3203:22 September
3201:. Retrieved
3196:
3192:
3182:
3173:
3167:
3148:
3142:
3131:
3125:
3106:
3100:
3081:
3075:
3067:
3063:
3055:
3040:
3036:
3026:
3017:
3011:
2999:. Retrieved
2988:
2976:. Retrieved
2971:
2958:
2945:
2939:
2930:
2924:
2916:
2911:
2895:
2891:
2886:(Australia).
2871:
2867:
2859:
2855:
2843:. Retrieved
2839:
2830:
2818:. Retrieved
2814:
2805:
2791:
2785:
2780:
2775:(Australia).
2760:
2755:
2746:
2742:
2736:
2727:
2723:
2717:
2712:(Australia).
2701:
2697:
2681:
2647:
2643:
2631:. Retrieved
2627:
2618:
2610:
2606:
2598:
2594:
2582:
2578:
2573:(Australia).
2562:
2558:
2553:(Australia).
2536:
2524:(Australia);
2509:
2497:
2493:
2473:
2469:
2434:
2430:
2420:
2412:
2406:
2402:
2397:(Australia).
2386:
2379:
2375:
2363:
2359:
2351:
2347:
2342:(Australia).
2331:
2327:
2311:
2299:
2295:
2290:(Australia).
2275:
2271:
2259:. Retrieved
2254:
2245:
2240:(Australia).
2225:
2222:(Australia);
2207:
2203:
2191:
2187:
2182:(Australia).
2165:
2153:(Australia).
2138:
2121:
2109:
2096:, (1935) 54
2079:
2075:
2065:
2061:
2038:
2032:
2022:22 September
2020:. Retrieved
2015:
2011:
1988:22 September
1986:. Retrieved
1974:
1970:
1960:
1941:
1935:
1916:
1910:
1898:. Retrieved
1893:
1890:"Negligence"
1884:
1872:. Retrieved
1868:the original
1863:
1860:"Negligence"
1854:
1825:
1812:
1802:
1788:
1733:Carelessness
1701:
1698:
1690:
1680:by way of a
1674:
1661:
1646:2 NZLR 234;
1642:1 NZLR 553;
1638:1 NZLR 394;
1597:
1586:Please help
1581:
1544:
1527:duty of care
1518:
1512:
1486:carelessness
1471:
1465:
1430:
1383:
1379:
1372:
1357:
1355:
1339:
1337:
1332:
1331:
1321:
1318:
1309:
1302:
1294:
1287:
1283:
1275:
1272:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1248:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1206:
1196:
1168:
1161:
1142:
1124:
1111:
1110:
1102:
1093:
1082:
1075:
1071:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1056:
1054:
1046:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1016:
1009:
1005:
1003:
995:
993:
981:
975:precluded a
965:Commonwealth
950:
949:The case of
948:
944:
941:Duty of care
935:Duty of care
929:
900:
886:duty of care
881:
875:
869:
868:
861:
860:
782:Criminal law
701:Class action
566:
559:
552:
495:Self-defense
413:
391:Deep pockets
325:
287:Duty of care
232:
49:Part of the
43:
4484:Legislature
4415:Bureaucracy
4212:Rule of man
4207:Rule of law
4182:Libertarian
4045:Chinese law
3946:Legislation
3896:Regulations
3884:Law reports
3862:Natural law
3758:Reparations
3753:Refugee law
3676:Jurimetrics
3617:(Media law)
3555:Banking law
3550:Amnesty law
3528:Disciplines
3465:Private law
3348:Buick Motor
1977:(1): 1–20.
1753:Malpractice
1650:1 NZLR 76;
1563:New Zealand
1498:advertently
1368:culpability
1338:Negligence
1199:Cardozo, J.
977:contractual
870:negligentia
658:Tort reform
292:Trespassers
257:Malpractice
252:Entrustment
172:False light
4592:Categories
4477:Law school
4357:Prosecutor
4295:Magistrate
4082:Jewish law
4040:Common law
3961:Rulemaking
3956:Regulation
3906:Law making
3845:Divine law
3821:Legal code
3768:Sports law
3691:Law of war
3641:Health law
3626:Family law
3610:Energy law
3560:Bankruptcy
3497:Punishment
3492:Public law
2974:. Ä°stanbul
2931:Code PĂ©nal
2884:High Court
2773:High Court
2710:High Court
2633:19 January
2571:High Court
2551:High Court
2522:High Court
2506:High Court
2476:(1976) 10
2395:High Court
2354:1 WLR 1304
2340:High Court
2288:High Court
2261:23 October
2238:High Court
2220:High Court
2180:High Court
2151:High Court
1841:References
1724:Law portal
1631:1 NZLR 360
1617:defamation
1590:by adding
1504:Common law
1494:aggravated
1490:aggravated
1445:İhmali suç
1313:California
1290:defamation
1263:Tame v NSW
1152:See also:
1041:See also:
988:Lord Atkin
909:duty: the
903:"elements"
882:negligence
862:Negligence
767:common law
670:Quasi-tort
622:Injunction
615:Incidental
434:Conspiracy
159:Defamation
136:Conversion
51:common law
4455:Judiciary
4450:Executive
4425:The bench
4362:Solicitor
4337:Barrister
4217:Sociology
4202:Pseudolaw
4142:Anarchist
4099:Roman law
4087:Parsi law
4072:Hindu law
4060:Canon law
4035:Civil law
3988:Concordat
3879:Precedent
3788:Trust law
3763:Space law
3600:Drugs law
3470:Procedure
3408:Civil law
3282:153380489
2759:See, eg,
2749:(3): 341.
2587:s 5d
2368:s 21
2224:see also
2196:s 32
2047:cite book
2018:(4): 1671
1846:Citations
1797:tort law.
1677:plaintiff
1539:Causation
1427:Civil law
1422:Worldwide
1217:conductor
1171:insurance
1133:Causation
915:plaintiff
911:defendant
777:Contracts
717:Australia
525:Liability
485:Necessity
373:liability
297:Licensees
217:Seduction
18:Negligent
4598:Tort law
4562:Category
4504:Tribunal
4489:Military
4332:Attorney
4302:Judgment
4162:Feminist
4077:Jain law
3874:Case law
3595:Cyberlaw
3502:Corporal
3480:Criminal
3450:Evidence
3440:Doctrine
3418:Contract
3136:: 60–61.
2845:12 April
2820:12 April
2661:617; 2
2461:17106507
1807:pocket."
1795:American
1763:Mens rea
1710:See also
1682:demurrer
1600:May 2024
1473:mens rea
1193:in 1895.
986:, where
792:Property
787:Evidence
637:Replevin
605:Punitive
592:Remedies
466:Defences
400:Nuisance
371:absolute
302:Invitees
129:chattels
119:Trespass
59:Tort law
4576:Outline
4513:History
4420:The bar
4394:Verdict
4342:Counsel
4322:Justice
4177:History
4000:Statute
3816:Charter
3778:Tax law
3726:Probate
3244:1599201
3001:21 June
2978:21 June
2452:1618741
1917:Law 101
1900:12 June
1874:24 July
1768:Neglect
1703:de novo
1453:Turkish
1441:Turkish
1431:In the
1417:insult.
1352:Damages
1346:Damages
1292:case).
1213:railway
973:privity
891:damages
805:estates
632:Detinue
627:Tracing
610:Special
600:Damages
480:Consent
267:medical
163:Slander
91:Battery
86:Assault
68:Outline
32:neglect
4494:Police
4465:Agency
4347:Lawyer
4092:Sharia
3983:Treaty
3978:Repeal
3924:Decree
3835:Custom
3731:Estate
3681:Labour
3445:Equity
3280:
3242:
3155:
3113:
3088:
2793:Molien
2730:: 228.
2663:All ER
2585:(NSW)
2459:
2449:
2366:(Qld)
2194:(NSW)
2070:AC 532
1948:
1923:
1482:intent
1457:Taksir
1340:per se
1269:Injury
1261:, and
1243:Sydney
1164:liable
803:, and
801:trusts
765:Other
752:Taiwan
722:Canada
675:Delict
642:Trover
367:Strict
53:series
4569:Index
4435:Court
4379:Trial
4285:Judge
4126:Yassa
3929:Edict
3475:Civil
3428:Crime
3278:S2CID
3240:JSTOR
3199:: 515
2968:(PDF)
2950:CEDAM
2934:(CP).
2898:
2882:402,
2874:
2771:563,
2763:
2704:
2684:
2653:
2565:
2549:506,
2541:
2520:182,
2512:
2500:
2389:
2334:
2314:
2302:
2278:
2228:
2210:
2178:549,
2170:
2149:317,
2141:
2118:(PDF)
2084:
1780:Notes
1509:India
1364:Latin
1222:train
957:fault
880:law,
797:Wills
769:areas
747:Japan
742:India
727:China
680:civil
452:Fraud
262:legal
166:Libel
4317:Jury
4265:Fiqh
4121:Xeer
3519:Tort
3435:Deed
3350:and
3312:2017
3205:2017
3153:ISBN
3111:ISBN
3086:ISBN
3003:2024
2980:2024
2847:2020
2822:2020
2784:See
2635:2024
2589:(2).
2484:720
2482:ALJR
2457:PMID
2263:2019
2236:44,
2218:60,
2092:85;
2053:link
2024:2017
1990:2017
1946:ISBN
1921:ISBN
1902:2011
1876:2017
1466:The
1461:care
1156:and
878:tort
866:Lat.
682:and
369:and
124:land
3389:Law
3270:doi
3232:doi
3058:at
2880:CLR
2795:v.
2769:CLR
2657:,
2547:CLR
2518:CLR
2478:ALR
2447:PMC
2439:doi
2284:CLR
2234:CLR
2216:CLR
2176:CLR
2147:CLR
2098:CLR
2088:,
1979:doi
1070:In
4594::
3823:/
3338:.
3305:74
3303:.
3299:.
3276:.
3264:.
3252:^
3238:.
3228:45
3226:.
3222:.
3197:87
3195:.
3191:.
3048:^
2970:.
2902:,
2838:.
2813:.
2747:37
2745:.
2728:30
2726:.
2708:,
2688:,
2674:^
2659:AC
2626:.
2569:,
2529:^
2504:,
2455:.
2445:.
2435:19
2433:.
2429:.
2393:,
2318:,
2306:,
2253:.
2158:^
2131:^
2120:.
2090:AC
2049:}}
2045:{{
2016:35
2014:.
2010:.
1998:^
1975:37
1973:.
1969:.
1892:.
1862:.
1688:.
1525:A
1463:.
1455::
1443::
1324:.
1265:.
1257:,
1129:.
1114::
1063:.
1033:.
799:,
3381:e
3374:t
3367:v
3354:.
3314:.
3284:.
3272::
3266:6
3246:.
3234::
3207:.
3161:.
3119:.
3094:.
3005:.
2982:.
2849:.
2824:.
2637:.
2488:.
2463:.
2441::
2383:,
2370:.
2265:.
2198:.
2126:.
2124:.
2055:)
2026:.
1992:.
1981::
1954:.
1929:.
1904:.
1878:.
1820:.
1602:)
1598:(
1594:.
1584:.
1407:.
1362:(
864:(
850:e
843:t
836:v
686:)
70:)
66:(
41:.
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.