Negligence - Knowledge (XXG)

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: 1591: 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: 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

17: 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: 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:İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü 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:"Türk 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:Ünal, Ertuğrul (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 18:Tort of negligence 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:. İstanbul 2931:Code Pénal 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 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.