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.



Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
With regards to the armed forces see [case] in which the Court of Appeal held that there was no duty of care between fellow soldiers engaged in battle conditions. In applying the Caparo test, the court held there was foreseeability and proximity but that it would not be just and reasonable to impose a duty in the circumstances. To decide otherwise may result in military operations being adversely affected if soldiers in battle felt that could be sued by a comrade for their negligent actions.
Answer
Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732

Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
With regards to the armed forces see [case] in which the Court of Appeal held that there was no duty of care between fellow soldiers engaged in battle conditions. In applying the Caparo test, the court held there was foreseeability and proximity but that it would not be just and reasonable to impose a duty in the circumstances. To decide otherwise may result in military operations being adversely affected if soldiers in battle felt that could be sued by a comrade for their negligent actions.
Answer
?

Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
With regards to the armed forces see [case] in which the Court of Appeal held that there was no duty of care between fellow soldiers engaged in battle conditions. In applying the Caparo test, the court held there was foreseeability and proximity but that it would not be just and reasonable to impose a duty in the circumstances. To decide otherwise may result in military operations being adversely affected if soldiers in battle felt that could be sued by a comrade for their negligent actions.
Answer
Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
With regards to the armed forces see Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732 in which the Court of Appeal held that there was no duty of care between fellow soldiers engaged in battle conditions. In applying the Caparo test, the court held there was foreseeabil

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

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