Discussion on Liability ?

[des8]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

At the end of the day, however, most posters on here are looking for practical help in solving what are relatively speaking most often minor problems (I do appreciate these problems may be having major effect on their lives).
They aren't looking for a learned discussion on finer (or even basic) points of law, just straight forward help.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Yes, and for this reason we have here a discussion thread.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

In relation to the instant 'case', with reference to 'spontaneous explosion of the glass, in your opinion, would the 'Man on the Clapham Omnibus' reasonably forsee that occurrence?

(Couldn't resist bringing Reginald Toff into this - particularly pertinent, considering the 'postscript', lol!)


http://graysdictionary.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/man-on-clapham-omnibus.html
14 FEBRUARY, 2007

The Man on the Clapham Omnibus



The Man on the Clapham Omnibus, to a lawyer, is synonymous with the pinnacle of reason in humanity: an ordinary London transit rider as representative of all rational thought and action. To members of the court at the time of this term's conception, the appellation is nothing more than an inside joke, one that has persisted to become a wondrous curio of the legal realm, like a "speedy trial" or "personal responsibility."

That is to say, the Man on the Clapham Omnibus was not the Reasonable Man at all: he simply resembled him, possessing the same generally handsome features - the curlicued mustache and well-fitting bowler hat - that the Reasonable Man was oft seen wearing. The Man on the Clapham Omnibus, in truth, was Reginald Toff, nothing more than a modest tallow chandler of Northcote Road. In fact, for a man who founded his candle-making business just days after the advent of electricity, (scented though they might have been) one might go so far as to declare him an "unreasonable" man.

The story goes like this: in June of 1753, the real Reasonable Man was due in Chancery courts to give expert testimony in the matter of R. v. Murphy. He failed to show up at court at the appointed time of 9 a.m., but barristers on both sides of the matter gave the witness the benefit of the doubt, conceding 10 a.m. to be a more reasonable starting time anyhow.

When the Reasonable Man still failed to show up, earnest law clerks were sent into Chancery Lane to try and catch a glimpse of the latecomer. Just at this moment the Clapham omnibus went chugging by, spiriting Mr. Toff within. It was the young clerk Philip Dunwell, in a typical attempt to win the favour of his superior judge, that yelled, "That's our man, the man on the Clapham omnibus!"

Judges, however, were right to question the likelihood of espying the Reasonable Man within the Clapham bus, as certainly any reasonable Londoner would have taken the Battersea Omnibus to court, generally regarded to be the more expedient of the two modes of public transportation.

Indeed, our Man had taken that route, but when the bell rang to signify his upcoming stop, it proved to be a death knell for his final stop. At the corner of Wakehurst and Northcote Road, the bus crashed, killing its occupants.

While tragic, the accident proved to be one of the more succinct cases London Peelers presided over: it was determined the driver of the omnibus acted within reason, just as the driver of the post-chaise had. It was, at the risk of literary hyperbole, a pure accident. William Hogarth would later reproduce this entirely unique occurrence in one of his trademark woodcuttings, depicting the accident taking place under both an eclipse and the end of a rainbow.

To make matters worse, the justice in the Murphy case had to declare a mistrial, concluding: "Everything that could go wrong, has." (The emphasis is his, not mine.)

(Emphasis mine - c)

The reasonable person is not perfect but he/ she is competent at what they do. If the glass had a faint line like a vein going through it the reasonable person could foresee problems. They would at the least further inspect the glass as they would be expected to know that children would be using the shower glass screen not just their families.

[meellis]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

I am now beginning to see why I have problems with some of the posts made. I don't confess to knowing the law I am a plumber. When I work with apprentices or newly qualified tradesman I have to spend time altering them from classroom mode to real world mode. I can understand if, while writing a thesis or essay, you could be given a very brief outline of a scenario for you to add your own bits and then complete the picture including cause and effect and actions. On LB we are talking real life scenarios were all the cause and effect is either in the original post or there to be teased out of the OP. It is ok showing how clever we may or may not be by starting to show case law and readings from legal text but if it bears little resemblance to the original issue then it only confuses matters. If the Op wants to be baffled by acres of legal jargon when asking about a refund on a bus ticket let them either ask for it or go to a solicitor and pay for it.
"The glass broke due to unforeseen forces and it wasn't me honest"
The above is a quote from an essay I wrote when at primary school and it was about me standing near my garden shed with a broken window.

[charitynjw]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Just to say that I for one enjoy this kind of banter - I always learn something & it's useful for future discussions. :argue::fencing::grin:

[NWHC]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

I was not trying to make anything personal,

I was questioning what authority there was in the opinion stated

As you quite rightly concede, the quality of argument and analysis needed from a 3rd year student (level 6) is most certainly higher than those of a 1st year .

You are quite rightly proud of your degree however I would also suggest that all degrees are hard , they are not given away ,although they do require different skills

The problem as afar as I see it, is that the qualification does not make you qualified . I have, in my experience , found that people with differing degrees look down on others , and they all look down on engineers . Equally those from ancient Universities look down on the red brick Universities who look down on modern universities and they all look down on the O.U.

[des8]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

I know my place

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

I was not trying to make anything personal,

I was questioning what authority there was in the opinion stated

As you quite rightly concede, the quality of argument and analysis needed from a 3rd year student (level 6) is most certainly higher than those of a 1st year .

You are quite rightly proud of your degree however I would also suggest that all degrees are hard , they are not given away ,although they do require different skills

The problem as afar as I see it, is that the qualification does not make you qualified . I have, in my experience , found that people with differing degrees look down on others , and they all look down on engineers . Equally those from ancient Universities look down on the red brick Universities who look down on modern universities and they all look down on the O.U.

I don't look down on anyone or on anyone's qualifications, or therein where their person has no qualifications. I am interested in the person's ability to argue their point by some type of authority or cogent persuasion by the power of their argument. I know any degree is tough, really tough and I would never ever berate any person for the degree type. On the contrary I respect engineers and find them to be extremely creative...so will present some interesting views. By personal - i mean by not referring to the writer's statements, ie rather directing it at the person, hence personal. I do not care about the person's grades, their degree type, these are for me entirely too subjective to correlate to measure ability. In any event what is ability...what is IQ, who defines it? Does IQ means intelligence, no it means correlated with intelligence. Well the elitists unis will always dominate.. it's like a game. The OU in contrast provides opportunities for professionals and all persons alike who have the ability but perhaps not the time to attend traditional university. I studied commercial law with the OU, as a matter of fact.

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

I'm a housewife.... do they exist anymore? I'm not a very good housewife....I hate housework.... and don't have time anyway lol.... I'm a mum too, better at that .... I'm studying Law @ OU ... I've done other stuff .... I used to work in a hotel.... it doesn't matter, experience, common sense and knowing how to find out what you need to find out to be able to help someone works absolutely fine and no one should ever be put down for not knowing, not being qualified... or even for being qualified - though being a know all is going to annoy people.

If anyone fancies doing my assignment that's due in on Wednesday... that I haven't even started looking at ... on employment law..... just give me a shout.... xxxxx

So can we PLEASE have a discussion thread about the points of law that are relevant and not start digging at one another .... else discussion threads will end up closed and in lamppost and a potentially interesting and useful discussion will be lost.

[NWHC]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Des
I love the sketch

Just to clarify, I was not passing personal judgement on types of degree or where they were from , just relaying opinions I have frequently heard from people with varing degrees. BSc holders think there degrees are more demanding and better while Classics degree holders think they are it although PPE seems to be the degree to do at Oxbridge if want to be a corrupt politician (are there any other type?)
Again the University you attain the degree at is for the purposes of employment largely irrelevant although if you wish to go onto further study say a MA or PhD it may well be, certainly the class of degree attained will be relevant.

As an aside did you know that once upon a time, even a 3rd class degree from Cambridge matured into a M.A. after a certain time, possibly 40 years without the need for extra study .

My original comment was based on the fact it seemed to me to be somewhat conceited to be using extracts from your own essay to make a point as it really holds no authority, if it had been an essay by someone hose name held gravitas such as Max Weber, or Lord Denning or even that hard to read Erving Goffman then I could see the point. I will admit that I personally struggle with arguments that are not scientific with absolutes .

Going back to the original question in post 1

There is far too little information as to who may be liable for the injuries . In the car accident it may be that the minibus had just had a new tyre fitted incorrectly that blew out , in that case it would seem likely that the tyre fitter would be sued . The devil is in the detail

[CLL1]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Another example of the offering of advice is found here : http://www.davidtwade.co.uk.

A law law student actually requesting payment for legal advice but which isn't legal advice. An hilarious article on legalcheek.co.uk led me to this gem.

a cautionary tale - he has been reported, apparently.

[wales01man]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Love your Post amethyst I think we all know you a very good Forum owner

[charitynjw]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Love your Post amethyst I think we all know you a very good Forum owner

Absolutely!

She told me that only yesterday!

:tung::bolt:

[Amethyst]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Love your Post amethyst I think we all know you a very good Forum owner

aww love you too wales xx

Absolutely!

She told me that only yesterday!

:tung::bolt:

and you can ballhooks xx

[Openlaw15]

Re: Discussion on Liability ?

Des
I love the sketch

Just to clarify, I was not passing personal judgement on types of degree or where they were from , just relaying opinions I have frequently heard from people with varing degrees. BSc holders think there degrees are more demanding and better while Classics degree holders think they are it although PPE seems to be the degree to do at Oxbridge if want to be a corrupt politician (are there any other type?)
Again the University you attain the degree at is for the purposes of employment largely irrelevant although if you wish to go onto further study say a MA or PhD it may well be, certainly the class of degree attained will be relevant.

As an aside did you know that once upon a time, even a 3rd class degree from Cambridge matured into a M.A. after a certain time, possibly 40 years without the need for extra study .

My original comment was based on the fact it seemed to me to be somewhat conceited to be using extracts from your own essay to make a point as it really holds no authority, if it had been an essay by someone hose name held gravitas such as Max Weber, or Lord Denning or even that hard to read Erving Goffman then I could see the point. I will admit that I personally struggle with arguments that are not scientific with absolutes .

Going back to the original question in post 1

There is far too little information as to who may be liable for the injuries . In the car accident it may be that the minibus had just had a new tyre fitted incorrectly that blew out , in that case it would seem likely that the tyre fitter would be sued . The devil is in the detail

the only reason I used my extracts was that it saved typing the relevant case law out...I provided all the legal authorities for others to research