Tort

Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] All ER (D) 20 (Mar)

The courts should not set an unreasonably high duty of care in negligence which would interfere with traditional village activities.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Tort

Issue: 7269 / Categories: Case law , Law digest

Cole v Davis-Gilbert [2007] All ER (D) 20 (Mar)

The courts should not set an unreasonably high duty of care in negligence which would interfere with traditional village activities.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DAC Beachcroft strengthens Scottish real estate capabilitywith partner appointment

Womble Bond Dickinson appoints Brendan Ryan as partner in Public Law Projects team

Parklane Plowden Chambers welcomes five new barristers

NEWS

NLJ this week: Pro bono’s silver lining

Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice

NLJ this week: Wrong expert, costly exit

Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case

Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues

NLJ this week: Discounted damages, different costs

A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims

Police powers targeting concealed identities at protests come with procedural conditions that could determine whether prosecutions succeed