in [case](Horsey and Rackley) a bus company were not liable for ‘joy riders’ who had stolen one of their buses and injured the plaintiff, despite evidence that they had left the keys in the ignition. The Court of Appeal did not believe that leaving the bus unattended at the end of the route in such a state constituted a sufficient enough risk of danger
Answer
Topp v London Country Bus (South West) [1993] 1 WLR 976
Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
in [case](Horsey and Rackley) a bus company were not liable for ‘joy riders’ who had stolen one of their buses and injured the plaintiff, despite evidence that they had left the keys in the ignition. The Court of Appeal did not believe that leaving the bus unattended at the end of the route in such a state constituted a sufficient enough risk of danger
Answer
?
Tags
#duty #law #negligence #tort
Question
in [case](Horsey and Rackley) a bus company were not liable for ‘joy riders’ who had stolen one of their buses and injured the plaintiff, despite evidence that they had left the keys in the ignition. The Court of Appeal did not believe that leaving the bus unattended at the end of the route in such a state constituted a sufficient enough risk of danger
Answer
Topp v London Country Bus (South West) [1993] 1 WLR 976
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it in Topp v London Country Bus (South West) [1993] 1 WLR 976 (Horsey and Rackley) a bus company were not liable for ‘joy riders’ who had stolen one of their buses and injured the plaintiff, despite evidence that they had left the keys in the igni
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.