Torts. Affirmative Defenses. In Common-Law Master-Servant Action Alleging Master's Negligent Creation of Hazard with Respect to Servant's Conditions of Employment, Answer Asserting Servant's Voluntary Exposure to Source of Possible Harm Does Not Entitle Master to Instruction Pertaining to Assumption of Risk in Addition to Instruction concerning Contributory Negligence

1961 ◽  
Vol 47 (8) ◽  
pp. 1444
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Affirmative Defenses ◽  
Conditions Of Employment

scholarly journals Apportionment of damages for contributory negligence: a fixed or discretionary approach?

Legal Studies ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 621-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Goudkamp
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Important Conclusion ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Common

In most of the common-law world, legislation provides for damages to be apportioned where the claimant is guilty of contributory negligence. This legislation gives judges considerable latitude to determine the extent to which damages should be diminished for contributory negligence. It imposes what will be called a system of ‘discretionary apportionment’. This paper draws attention to the fact that, although most common-law jurisdictions are, by virtue of their apportionment legislation, in the thrall of the paradigm of discretionary apportionment, there are many, varied departures from this paradigm. This paper classifies these departures (which will be called ‘fixed apportionment rules’), emphasises that they conflict with the apportionment legislation and considers how the conflicts ought to be resolved. An important conclusion reached is that it can plausibly be argued that the landmark decision in Froom v Butcher, at least as it has been understood in subsequent cases, was decided per incuriam. Froom sits uncomfortably with the apportionment legislation. Attention is then turned to the arguments for and against a discretionary system of apportionment as opposed to a system that incorporates more fixed apportionment rules. It is contended that much stands to be gained from introducing more fixed apportionment rules.

Social-Engineer 'Civil Servants' Historical Development & Common Law Perspective

GIS Business ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1011-1016
Author(s):  
Siddharth Thapliyal ◽  
Poonam Rawat
Keyword(s):  
Historical Development ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
East India Company ◽  
Direct Relation ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Pension Benefits ◽  
Social Engineer ◽  
Conditions Of Employment

Civil services in India are modeled upon the pattern of Britain. Still there are some important defenses between the law relating to civil servants in England and India. The expression civil post has been subject of judicial interpretation. The safeguard to Govt. servants in India has been provided in Indian constitution under Article and fundamental rights against doctrine of pleasure enumerated in Article 3l0. The doctrine pleasure is originated from English law through East India Company when British directly took over the command of India from East India Company. The doctrine of pleasure was prerogative of king in England. Which means govt. servants used to hold office during the pleasure of king or crown and his services could be terminated at any stage with giving him opportunity unless provided in statute. The crown was not bound by the terms and conditions of employment and terms of contract. It was considered that, king can do no wrong. There were direct relation between crown and its servants and the crown was empowered to terminate the services of its servant without affording them opportunity of hearing or without pay them any retrenchment compensation, pension benefits, damages for wrongful termination or any other relief which are applicable in present era.

scholarly journals Contributory negligence in the Court of Appeal: an empirical study

Legal Studies ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 437-467
Author(s):  
James Goudkamp ◽  
Donal Nolan
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Common Law ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In this paper we report the results of an empirical study of 112 appellate decisions on the contributory negligence doctrine in England and Wales between 2000 and 2015. It is the first study of its kind in any common law jurisdiction, and builds on earlier research in which we looked at the doctrine's operation in first instance courts. Our dataset comprised every appellate decision in which contributory negligence was an issue that was handed down during the study period and which we were able to access electronically. The most important findings include the fact that appeals succeed more frequently in relation to the existence of contributory negligence than with respect to apportionment; that the overall prospect of winning an appeal on contributory negligence does not depend on whether the first instance court is a county court or the High Court; that claimants are nearly twice as likely to win an appeal regarding the existence of contributory negligence as defendants; and that by far most common discount imposed following an appeal is 50%.

Statutes Aiding States' Recovery of Medicaid Costs from Tobacco Companies: A Better Strategy for Redressing an Identifiable Harm?

1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-472
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Frohlich
Keyword(s):  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Epidemiological Evidence ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Affirmative Defenses

“We ‘re going to take the Marlboro Man to court. “— Florida Governor Lawton ChilesDespite overwhelming epidemiological evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and that addictive nicotine in tobacco keeps smokers smoking, our legal system has yet to allow a recovery against the tobacco industry for the massive harms it knowingly causes. Plaintiff smokers have sought recovery, only to be thwarted by affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence, preemption of their claims by federal cigarette labeling laws, the difficulty of proving that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and the enormous resources of the $45 billion per year tobacco industry.After forty years of unsuccessful lawsuits against the tobacco industry, a new plaintiff has come forward. In 1994, Florida and Massachusetts passed legislation enabling the states to bring suit against the tobacco industry to recover Medicaid costs of treating smoking-related illnesses.

to read the accounts and, had he done so, he would probably have discovered the extent of the defendant’s misrepresentation. It was held, nonetheless, that the plaintiff had relied on the false statement and was therefore entitled to rescission of the contract. If Redgrave v Hurd was decided today, it might be necessary to reconsider whether the court was correct in reaching this conclusion. It is clear that the common law counterpart of a misrepresentation, namely the negligent misstatement, requires reasonableness of reliance. At the very least, this issue should be ‘centre stage’ today. How would it be resolved? Policy dictates that if the misrepresentation is fraudulent an opportunity of inspection (spurned or taken) should not bar reliance on the misrepresentation. To hold otherwise would be a green light for the more effective ‘con artist’! If, on the other hand, the misrepresentation is wholly innocent (particularly if greater expertise resides in the representee) reliance may not be reasonable. As regards negligent misrepresentation, the policy to be adopted is not clear; perhaps the answer lies in the respective skill and knowledge of the parties, particularly as it has now been recognised that at least for the purposes of an action under s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967, apportionment of damages for contributory negligence is a possibility.

1995 ◽  
pp. 233-233
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Green Light ◽  
The Other ◽  
False Statement ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
The Common ◽  
Con Artist

23. Statutory and Common Law Regulation of the Conditions of Employment

Business Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 612-644
Author(s):  
James Marson ◽  
Katy Ferris
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Wage ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Business Interests ◽  
Contract Of Employment ◽  
Employment Legislation ◽  
Conditions Of Employment ◽  
Law Regulation

This chapter continues from the discussion of the obligations on employers to adhere to the Equality Act (EA) 2010 and protect their workers from discrimination and harassment, to a wider consideration of the regulation of conditions of employment. Legislation places many obligations on employers, and they are increasingly subject to statutory controls that provide for a minimum wage to be paid to workers, for regulation as to the maximum number of hours workers may be required to work, and for the protection of workers’ health and safety. In the event of an employer’s insolvency, the rights of employees are identified, and finally, the mechanisms for employers to protect their business interests in the contract of employment are considered.

Social-Engineer 'Civil Servants' Historical Development & Common Law Perspective

GIS Business ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1118-1123
Author(s):  
Siddharth Thapliyal ◽  
Poonam Rawat
Keyword(s):  
Historical Development ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
East India Company ◽  
Direct Relation ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
Pension Benefits ◽  
Social Engineer ◽  
Conditions Of Employment

Civil services in India are modeled upon the pattern of Britain. Still there are some important defenses between the law relating to civil servants in England and India. The expression civil post has been subject of judicial interpretation. The safeguard to Govt. servants in India has been provided in Indian constitution under Article and fundamental rights against doctrine of pleasure enumerated in Article 3l0. The doctrine pleasure is originated from English law through East India Company when British directly took over the command of India from East India Company. The doctrine of pleasure was prerogative of king in England. Which means govt. servants used to hold office during the pleasure of king or crown and his services could be terminated at any stage with giving him opportunity unless provided in statute. The crown was not bound by the terms and conditions of employment and terms of contract. It was considered that, king can do no wrong. There were direct relation between crown and its servants and the crown was empowered to terminate the services of its servant without affording them opportunity of hearing or without pay them any retrenchment compensation, pension benefits, damages for wrongful termination or any other relief which are applicable in present era.

scholarly journals DRIFTING TOWARDS PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY: ETHICS AND PRAGMATICS

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kit Barker ◽  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Liability Rule ◽  
Pragmatic Argument ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Contributory Negligence ◽  
Proportionate Liability ◽  
Logical Extension

AbstractThis article investigates an apparent, convergent shift in common law jurisdictions away from the traditional principle of joint and several liability towards proportionate liability in cases involving multiple wrongdoers, and argues that this is best seen as an unprincipled drift. The shift is often presented by defendants and legislators as a logical extension of the ethics of comparative (contributory) negligence doctrine. Here we deny any ethical connection between the two doctrines. We also suggest that there is no good, generalisable ethical or pragmatic argument in favour of proportionate liability in its own right and caution jurisdictions currently considering reform of the joint and several liability rule against leaping to any such assumption.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document