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.


  • Presentation
  • Question
  • Answer

Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
In Palmer v Tees Health Authority, the claimant argued that a local Mental Health Authority owed her a duty (and had, subsequently, breached this duty) in allowing a psychiatric patient into the community without adequate supervision. The patient had previously threatened to kill a child and subsequently attacked and killed the claimant’s daughter. The Court of Appeal, following Hill, stated that there was not sufficient proximity between the parties for a duty to exist. She was not an identifiable potential victim and [...].
Answer
there was nothing that the defendants could have reasonably done to prevent the incident occurring

Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
In Palmer v Tees Health Authority, the claimant argued that a local Mental Health Authority owed her a duty (and had, subsequently, breached this duty) in allowing a psychiatric patient into the community without adequate supervision. The patient had previously threatened to kill a child and subsequently attacked and killed the claimant’s daughter. The Court of Appeal, following Hill, stated that there was not sufficient proximity between the parties for a duty to exist. She was not an identifiable potential victim and [...].
Answer
?

Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
In Palmer v Tees Health Authority, the claimant argued that a local Mental Health Authority owed her a duty (and had, subsequently, breached this duty) in allowing a psychiatric patient into the community without adequate supervision. The patient had previously threatened to kill a child and subsequently attacked and killed the claimant’s daughter. The Court of Appeal, following Hill, stated that there was not sufficient proximity between the parties for a duty to exist. She was not an identifiable potential victim and [...].
Answer
there was nothing that the defendants could have reasonably done to prevent the incident occurring
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ild and subsequently attacked and killed the claimant’s daughter. The Court of Appeal, following Hill, stated that there was not sufficient proximity between the parties for a duty to exist. She was not an identifiable potential victim and <span>there was nothing that the defendants could have reasonably done to prevent the incident occurring.<span><body><html>

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.