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
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.