The standard of care in contributory negligence is what is reasonable in the circumstances, and this usually corresponds to the standard of care in negligence1. The standard of care depends upon foreseeability. Just as actionable negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to others, so contributory negligence requires the foreseeability of harm to oneself. A person is guilty of contributory negligence if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that, if he did not act as a reasonably prudent person, he might hurt himself2. A claimant must take into account the possibility of others being careless3. As with negligence, the standard
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and millions of others like it, sign-in to LexisLibrary or register for a free trial.
EXISTING USER? SIGN IN
TAKE A FREE TRIAL
STOP PRESS: The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 contains provisions which, on a temporary basis (presently until 31 December 2020) impose significant limitations on the ability for a creditor to seek a winding-up order against a company. For further reading, see Practice Note: Corporate
This Practice Note considers the law governing the procedural law of arbitration proceedings (the curial law or lex arbitri) and how it is determined under the law of England and Wales (England and English are used as convenient shorthand).The procedural law of the arbitral proceedingsThe procedural
Criminal offences are generally divided into two categories: •conduct crimes, and •result crimesA conduct crime is a crime where only the forbidden conduct needs to be proved. For example, an accused is guilty of dangerous driving if they drove a motor vehicle dangerously on a road or other public
This Practice Note considers the doctrine of forum non conveniens, also referred to as the appropriate forum or the proper place for a dispute to be determined. This doctrine is of relevance when determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction to hear a dispute and is applied
0330 161 1234