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
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
This can be distinguished from Payling v Naylor, The Times, 2 June 2004 (Court of Appeal). Here, the claimant suffered serious head injuries after being ejected from the defendant’s nightclub by a doorman employed by a security firm. The claimant alleged that the defendant had breached his duty by [...]. The claim failed on the basis that the defendant was not obliged to check the contractor’s insurance position as a necessary or even just a prudent means of assessing his competence.
Answer
failing to ensure that the firm had public liability insurance cover

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
This can be distinguished from Payling v Naylor, The Times, 2 June 2004 (Court of Appeal). Here, the claimant suffered serious head injuries after being ejected from the defendant’s nightclub by a doorman employed by a security firm. The claimant alleged that the defendant had breached his duty by [...]. The claim failed on the basis that the defendant was not obliged to check the contractor’s insurance position as a necessary or even just a prudent means of assessing his competence.
Answer
?

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
This can be distinguished from Payling v Naylor, The Times, 2 June 2004 (Court of Appeal). Here, the claimant suffered serious head injuries after being ejected from the defendant’s nightclub by a doorman employed by a security firm. The claimant alleged that the defendant had breached his duty by [...]. The claim failed on the basis that the defendant was not obliged to check the contractor’s insurance position as a necessary or even just a prudent means of assessing his competence.
Answer
failing to ensure that the firm had public liability insurance cover
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
2 June 2004 (Court of Appeal). Here, the claimant suffered serious head injuries after being ejected from the defendant’s nightclub by a doorman employed by a security firm. The claimant alleged that the defendant had breached his duty by <span>failing to ensure that the firm had public liability insurance cover. The claim failed on the basis that the defendant was not obliged to check the contractor’s insurance position as a necessary or even just a prudent means of assessing his competence.

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.