In Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 All ER 7, the defendant, an elderly man, suffered a stroke whilst driving his car. As a result there was an accident and the claimant sustained an injury. The court held that the defendant was negligent; he had to be judged according to the standard of the reasonable competent driver. Emphasis was placed on whether [...]. Neill J held that the defendant could only escape liability if the incapacity amounted to automatism (a defence in criminal law that requires a total loss of consciousness or control).
Answer
he should have stopped the car as soon as he realised that his driving was being affected
Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 All ER 7, the defendant, an elderly man, suffered a stroke whilst driving his car. As a result there was an accident and the claimant sustained an injury. The court held that the defendant was negligent; he had to be judged according to the standard of the reasonable competent driver. Emphasis was placed on whether [...]. Neill J held that the defendant could only escape liability if the incapacity amounted to automatism (a defence in criminal law that requires a total loss of consciousness or control).
Answer
?
Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
In Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 All ER 7, the defendant, an elderly man, suffered a stroke whilst driving his car. As a result there was an accident and the claimant sustained an injury. The court held that the defendant was negligent; he had to be judged according to the standard of the reasonable competent driver. Emphasis was placed on whether [...]. Neill J held that the defendant could only escape liability if the incapacity amounted to automatism (a defence in criminal law that requires a total loss of consciousness or control).
Answer
he should have stopped the car as soon as he realised that his driving was being affected
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it s car. As a result there was an accident and the claimant sustained an injury. The court held that the defendant was negligent; he had to be judged according to the standard of the reasonable competent driver. Emphasis was placed on whether <span>he should have stopped the car as soon as he realised that his driving was being affected. Neill J held that the defendant could only escape liability if the incapacity amounted to automatism (a defence in criminal law that requires a total loss of consciousness or control
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.