R v Instan [1893]

Facts:

  • D lived with her aunt who became seriously ill but D did not seek any medical help for her.
  • D was charged with manslaughter.

Held:
  • Victim could only be aided by Instan and it was only Instan that had knowledge of her condition in the final days. Instan therefore owed the victim a duty of care.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke [1969] AC 645

Facts: Crown colony of Southern Rhodesia, which had been self-governing since 1923, declared independence from Britain in 1965 British government considered its UDI to be illegal and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Rhodesian government Before 1965, Madzimbamuto was detained under section 21 of the Regulations Madzimbamuto's wife challenged the legality of her husband's detention, on the grounds that the prolongation of the state of emergency was unlawful Issue: Whether a convention would be enforceable and have legal position of United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia Held: The case reached the Privy Council who rejected the Rhodesian Minister for Law and Order's argument that because of the convention, the United Kingdom legislation overriding the Rhodesian detention law was invalid
Read more

Jackson and others v A-G (2005)

Facts: In November 2004, the British Government enacted the Hunting law which prohibited fox hunting Bill received support in the House of Commons but opposition in the House of Lords, so the Parliament Act 1949 was used to counter the House of Lords' ability to delay the bill and so it received royal assent The claimant attempted to assert that the Hunting Act 2004 was invalid as the 1949 Parliament Act was itself illegal Issue: Was the Parliament Act 1949 unlawful, and subsequently was the Hunting Act 2004 unlawful? Held: At the first hearing and upon appeal, the Courts found for the Attorney General, determining that the Hunting Act and the Parliament Acts were lawful This decision was upheld on final appeal to the House of Lords
Read more

Sion v Hampstead Health Authority [1994] EWCA Civ 26

Facts: S appealed against the High Court’s decision to strike out his statement of claim for personal injury damages on the grounds that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. S brought an action against the hospital alleging their negligent treatment of his son caused him to suffer psychiatric injury. Ratio: Appeal dismissed. However, even where a statement of claim disclosed no cause of action, the court had discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend it out of time provided that the proposed amendment arose from the facts in the pleading. S was unable to recover for psychiatric harm sustained as a result of watching his son die over a period of 14 days while becoming increasingly aware that the hospital was negligent in its treatment of him.
Read more