82,903
edits
Gross negligence: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
There is a world of nuance in ''framing'' those duties — see below — but once framed, the question is binary. | There is a world of nuance in ''framing'' those duties — see below — but once framed, the question is binary. | ||
Where the parties have not agreed their | Where the parties have not agreed their relationship in advance — where they are ships in the night, the courts must imply the duties they owe each other. This they do through the law of [[tort]], extruding them from abstract ideas like the “[[duty of care]]”, the “[[neighbour]]” principle, and the mythical man<ref>The easily triggered: should ''not'' Google “''[[Fardell v Potts]]''”. Those of a robust constitution might enjoy it, however.</ref> on the [[Man on the Clapham Omnibus|Clapham Omnibus]]. | ||
Again, much nuance required to frame the scope and extent of these duties, but once they are framed, it becomes a binary question. ''Did you do your duty, or not''? | Again, much nuance required to frame the scope and extent of these duties, but once they are framed, it becomes a binary question. ''Did you do your duty, or not''? | ||