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

Thomas Bonham v College of Physicians (1610) 8 Co Rep 114 (Dr Bonham’s Case)

Facts: Bonham, a trained medical doctor, petitioned to join the College of Physicians but was rejected Bonham applied for membership again; this time his rejection was accompanied by a fine and a threat of imprisonment should he continue his practice Bonham claimed that the College had no power over Oxford and Cambridge graduates Bonham was imprisoned and sued for a fine for maintaining an illicit practice at the King's Bench Issue: The College claimed to have statutory basis for its allegation that it was free to decide who could practice medicine and to punish those without a licence Bonham argued that the statutes aimed to prevent malpractice but did not relate to practice without a licence Held: Two-judge minority sided with the College held that the statutes conferred powers on the College that were to be exercised on behalf of the King Majority found for Bonham and Sir Coke claimed that the power to impose fines on those involved in illicit practice a...
Read more

‘The rise of the judicial use of proportionality has given too much power to judges’. Discuss with reference to relevant cases.

Where people argue that the proportionality test hands too much power to the judiciary in relation to government policies, rather, it hands a schematic tool to the judiciary to ensure that law remains democratic in the broader meaning of the term. How the proportionality test is applied has been significantly nuanced and developed according to context.
Read more

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