I just checked out the examiner's report there from April 06 Q2 and he says considerable focus should be on res ipsa loquitur and mentioned cases Scott V London, Hanrahan V MSD and Rothwell V MIBI.
On Sep 29, 9:10 am, Grey <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't think so - far as I know proof of negligence mainly relates to > the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur but if I'm wrong will someone out > there please correct me now before it's too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > On Sep 29, 8:54 am, Jen Breathnach <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Just a quick question on "proof of negligence" in exam papers. Does this > > require you to go into detail about duty of care, standard of care etc or > > the burden of proof on the plaintiff etc? > > > All help really appreciated ... Thanks!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/fe-1-study-group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
