Contrast Pearson v Lightning, The Times, 30 April 1998, where a golfer whose ball bounced off a tree and hit another player was liable because [...]. The risk of injury was not so slight that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it.
Answer
in the circumstances it was foreseeable that the claimant might be injured if the difficult shot the defendant was playing went wrong
Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
Contrast Pearson v Lightning, The Times, 30 April 1998, where a golfer whose ball bounced off a tree and hit another player was liable because [...]. The risk of injury was not so slight that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it.
Answer
?
Tags
#breach #negligence #tort
Question
Contrast Pearson v Lightning, The Times, 30 April 1998, where a golfer whose ball bounced off a tree and hit another player was liable because [...]. The risk of injury was not so slight that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it.
Answer
in the circumstances it was foreseeable that the claimant might be injured if the difficult shot the defendant was playing went wrong
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Contrast Pearson v Lightning, The Times, 30 April 1998, where a golfer whose ball bounced off a tree and hit another player was liable because in the circumstances it was foreseeable that the claimant might be injured if the difficult shot the defendant was playing went wrong. The risk of injury was not so slight that a reasonable person would not have anticipated it.
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.