翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Dorstone ・ Dorstone Castle ・ Dorsum ・ Dorsum (moth) ・ Dorsum Arduino ・ Dorset Senior Cup ・ Dorset Square ・ Dorset Street ・ Dorset Street, Dublin ・ Dorset Street, London ・ Dorset Teddy Bear Museum ・ Dorset Township, Ashtabula County, Ohio ・ Dorset Vale, South Australia ・ Dorset Wildlife Trust ・ Dorset Women cricket team ・ Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office ・ Dorset, Minnesota ・ Dorset, Ohio ・ Dorset, Ontario ・ Dorset, Vermont ・ Dorset, Virginia ・ Dorset/Kawagama Lake (Old Mill Marina) Water Aerodrome ・ Dorset/Kawagama Lake (South) Water Aerodrome ・ Dorsetensia ・ Dorsetisaurus ・ Dorsetochelys ・ Dorsetodon ・ Dorsets ・ Dorsetshire Gap ・ Dorsett Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office ： ウィキペディア英語版 Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office is a leading case in English tort law. It is a House of Lords decision on negligence and marked the start of a rapid expansion in the scope of negligence in the United Kingdom by widening the circumstances in which a court was likely to find a duty of care. The case also addressed the liability of government bodies, a person's liability for the acts of third parties that he has facilitated, and liability for omissions. ==Facts== On 21 September 1962, ten borstal trainees were working on Brownsea Island in the harbour under the control of three officers employed by the Home Office. Seven trainees escaped one night, at the time the officers had retired to bed leaving the trainees to their own devices. The seven trainees who escaped boarded a yacht and collided with another yacht, the property of the respondents, and damaged it. The owners of the yacht sued the Home Office in negligence for damages. A preliminary issue was ordered to be tried on whether the officers or the Home Office owed a duty of care to the claimants (or plaintiffs as they were termed prior to the adoption of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999) capable of giving rise to liability in damages. It was admitted that the Home Office would be vicariously liable if an action would lie against any of the officers. The preliminary hearing found for the Dorset Yacht Co. that there was, in law, a duty of care and that the case could go forward for trial on its facts. The Home Office appealed to the House of Lords. The Home Office argued that it could owe no duty of care as there was no precedent for any duty on similar facts. Further, it was argued that there could be no liability for the actions of a third party and that the Home Office should be immune from legal action owing to the public nature of its duties. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.