Add Papers Marked0
Paper checked off!

Marked works

Viewed0

Viewed works

Shopping Cart0
Paper added to shopping cart!

Shopping Cart

Register Now

internet library
Atlants.lv library
FAQ
3,99 € Add to cart
Add to Wish List
Want cheaper?
ID number:911742
 
Evaluation:
Published: 03.04.2004.
Language: English
Level: Secondary school
Literature: n/a
References: Not used
Extract

Latest Developments Highlighting Current Approach to Proximity
Recent developments have shown that the element of proximity in determining duty of care is being less and less favoured. One of the first cases in which this can be seen is that of Hill v Van Erp (1997) . Mrs Van Erp, the plaintiff, had been named beneficiary in the will of Mrs Currey. The will was drawn under the supervision of Ms Hill, the defendant. Ms Hill asked Mr Van Erp to witness the will. Mr Van Erp's signature meant that the will was invalid and therefore when Mrs Currey died the money went to Mrs Currey's son instead of Mrs Van Erp. Mrs Van Erp thus sued Ms Hill for negligence. By taking precedence on Jaensch v Coffey (1984), Deane J's two stage test was applied and it was found that Ms Hill did owe Mrs Van Erp a duty of care . Upon appeal to the High Court, only one of the six judges used the proximity test. The judges did decide in the favour of the plaintiff, however most of them maid there decision by either redefining proximity or not even taking proximity into consideration.

Author's comment
Atlants

Choose Authorization Method

Email & Password

Email & Password

Wrong e-mail adress or password!
Log In

Forgot your password?

Draugiem.pase
Facebook

Not registered yet?

Register and redeem free papers!

To receive free papers from Atlants.com it is necessary to register. It's quick and will only take a few seconds.

If you have already registered, simply to access the free content.

Cancel Register