The victims were servicemen killed and injured in friendly fire who contended that the Ministry of Defence had breached a duty of care to provide equipment that would have prevented the incident. Combat immunity has not previously been extended as far as these decisions that were taken long before the incident, so the claim was not struck out.
Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41
Answer
?
Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41
Answer
The victims were servicemen killed and injured in friendly fire who contended that the Ministry of Defence had breached a duty of care to provide equipment that would have prevented the incident. Combat immunity has not previously been extended as far as these decisions that were taken long before the incident, so the claim was not struck out.
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Smith v Ministry of Defence [2013] UKSC 41, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of combat immunity should be narrowly construed. The victims were servicemen killed and injured in friendly fire who contended that the Ministr
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised 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.