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
It is essential to show that the cause of the accident was in the control of the defendant or his servants. If there is the possibility of outside interference then the maxim cannot be used. Contrast the case of [case], where the maxim applied to the unexplained opening of an underground train door, with the case of Easson v London and NE Railway Co [1944] KB 421, where it failed in respect of a main line train door.
Answer
Gee v Metropolitan Railway (1873) LR 8 QB 161

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
It is essential to show that the cause of the accident was in the control of the defendant or his servants. If there is the possibility of outside interference then the maxim cannot be used. Contrast the case of [case], where the maxim applied to the unexplained opening of an underground train door, with the case of Easson v London and NE Railway Co [1944] KB 421, where it failed in respect of a main line train door.
Answer
?

Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
It is essential to show that the cause of the accident was in the control of the defendant or his servants. If there is the possibility of outside interference then the maxim cannot be used. Contrast the case of [case], where the maxim applied to the unexplained opening of an underground train door, with the case of Easson v London and NE Railway Co [1944] KB 421, where it failed in respect of a main line train door.
Answer
Gee v Metropolitan Railway (1873) LR 8 QB 161
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
ead><head>It is essential to show that the cause of the accident was in the control of the defendant or his servants. If there is the possibility of outside interference then the maxim cannot be used. Contrast the case of Gee v Metropolitan Railway (1873) LR 8 QB 161, where the maxim applied to the unexplained opening of an underground train door, with the case of Easson v London and NE Railway Co [1944] KB 421, where it failed in respect of a mai

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.