Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



#breach #negligence #tort
It is essential to show that the cause of the accident was in the control of the defendant or his servants. If there is the possibility of outside interference then the maxim cannot be used. Contrast the case of Gee v Metropolitan Railway (1873) LR 8 QB 161, where the maxim applied to the unexplained opening of an underground train door, with the case of Easson v London and NE Railway Co [1944] KB 421, where it failed in respect of a main line train door.
If you want to change selection, open document below and click on "Move attachment"

pdf

cannot see any pdfs


Summary

statusnot read reprioritisations
last reprioritisation on suggested re-reading day
started reading on finished reading on

Details


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.