Oh my gosh you are a lifesaver, I have been struggling this year 2nd yr Law, to comprehend all the information I'm learning, you make it too easy to understand. Thank you so much
Aww thank you very much for your kind words Emma! I massively appreciate your feedback and am so glad my video helped you! I have a bunch of free resources for law students on my website too (www.julieschmidtlaw.com). Please go download some :)
😅😅I will just have to try madam, it's something I truly love. Even the books are sent to me as soft copies I have to print them at internet café with some money but that's life. I will rely on these videos of yours for help😅😅
I found this extremely helpful! Is there any chance if you could do a video on helpful ways on learning civil litigation? As well as top tips for learning tort case law? Thank you
First, great video! The UK kinda went through this route: Donoghue-Ann’s (fell out of disfavour)-Caparo in the 90s Interesting to know that NZ employed “fair, just and reasonable” (same third limb in Caparo), hope it didn’t turn out as two confusing sets of authorities or judges discretionarily denying duty.
What can we say about a guy who doesn't put the brake on his car and it rolls down the hill and smashes in to a shop and the person dives out of the way gets hurt and is injured further by glass
It seems like there would be a duty of care between the driver and the person injured, as they are proximate and it is foreseeable the that if the driver does not put his brake on he could injure a person nearby. The standard of care does not seem to be met, as a reasonable person would put his brake on. The negligent act of not putting the brake on caused the glass to shatter, which injured the person. (This is not legal advice.)
@Julie Schmidt Law lol don't need legal advice, just just got my legal question and need my answer comparing. I saw it as the driver had broken his duty of care to other road users and pedestrians. Failed the reasonable person test. Has factual causation for the as but for test as if not for him not putting the brake on it wouldn't have crashed in the window, he wouldn't have dived out of the way and he wouldn't have cut himself on the glass. Legally he wouldn't have been hurt either. Then under broken skull theory and think liable cos of the back ...I think am on right track.. been sat reading all day
