Print

Print


Please excuse cross-posting

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ronald Huttner <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 7 November 2008 10:35:35 AM
> To: [log in to unmask], Donald Buffaloe <[log in to unmask] 
> >
> Subject: [LAW-LIB:57201] Re: English Tort Law History   -  Where To  
> Research It
>
> Don,
> The law relating to occupier's liability has been reformed, and  
> assimilated to the general law of negligence, in heaps of common-law  
> jurisdictions around the world now.
> What would be a more productive way in which to research your  
> Professor's question would be to concentrate on pinning down the  
> reports of the many law reform commissions and agencies that  
> examined carefully the need for reform in this area of tort law.
> Have a thorough look at the various links available at:-
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=reform+of+the+law+relating+to+occupier%27s+liability&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>
> Ronald Huttner LL.B (Hons)
> (Retired) Barrister, Solicitor, Law Lecturer and Legal Researcher
> Melbourne
> Victoria
> Australia
>
>
>
> On 07/11/2008, at 10:21 AM, Buffaloe, Donald wrote:
>
>> Please excuse the cross-posting.  I have been researching an issue  
>> involving the development of tort law and am hoping that someone  
>> can provide some assistance.  It involves the law of negligence and  
>> varying degrees of the duty of care owed by the occupier of land to  
>> visitors divided into the categories trespassers, licensees and  
>> invitees.  I am looking for a more in-depth discussion of this  
>> statement:
>>
>> The law relating to responsibility on dangerous premises long  
>> resisted the pervasive trend of measuring the existence and scope  
>> of duties of care by the broad standards of foreseeability of harm  
>> and reasonable conduct. Until well into the middle of the  
>> nineteenth century the prominence and social prestige attached to  
>> landholding defied all serious challenge to the claim by occupiers  
>> to be left free to in the enjoyment and exploitation of the demesne  
>> without subordination to the interest of the general public.
>> John G. Fleming, An Introduction to the Law of Torts 68 (1985).
>>
>> The professor who asked me to research this issue thinks that the  
>> in-depth discussion would appear in a treatise on the history of  
>> English law and not a treatise on tort law, periodical article or  
>> case law.  We have several treaties on the history of English law,  
>> including Holdsworth, William S., A history of English law, 7th  
>> ed.; edited by A.L. Goodhart and H.G. Hanbury (1956-1966) and  
>> Fifoot, C. H. S., History and sources of the common law: tort and  
>> contract (1949).  I could not find anything in these treatises.
>>
>> I have also looked in Blackstone, Commentaries; Stephen’s  
>> Commentaries on the Laws of England and various treatises on tort  
>> law: Fleming, Salmond, and Clerk & Lindsell.  When I have found  
>> some discussion of this, it is usually under the index entry  
>> “occupier”.  I have also been able to find relevant materials using  
>> the table of contents under the broad category “negligence” and the  
>> sub-category “duty of care”.
>>
>> I would be very grateful if anyone has any suggestions on new ways  
>> to approach this project or sources that would contain this in- 
>> depth discussion.  Thank you.
>>
>> Don Buffaloe
>> Senior Research Services Librarian
>> Pepperdine University School of Law
>> 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy.
>> Malibu CA 90263
>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> Telephone: (310) 506-4823  Fax: (310) 506-4836
>
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ronald Huttner <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 7 November 2008 10:45:47 AM
> To: [log in to unmask], Donald Buffaloe <[log in to unmask] 
> >
> Subject: [LAW-LIB:57202] Fwd: English Tort Law History   -  Where To  
> Research It   -   A Further Reference For You
>
> See also the very useful discussion of this topic in the decision of  
> the High Court Of Australia (the highest court in our judicial  
> hierarchy) in Hackshaw v. Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614 (11 December 1984)  
> at:-
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/84.html?query=occupier's%20liability
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Ronald Huttner <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 7 November 2008 10:35:35 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask], Donald Buffaloe <[log in to unmask] 
>> >
>> Subject: Re: [LAW-LIB:57200] English Tort Law History   -  Where To  
>> Research It
>>
>> Don,
>> The law relating to occupier's liability has been reformed, and  
>> assimilated to the general law of negligence, in heaps of common- 
>> law jurisdictions around the world now.
>> What would be a more productive way in which to research your  
>> Professor's question would be to concentrate on pinning down the  
>> reports of the many law reform commissions and agencies that  
>> examined carefully the need for reform in this area of tort law.
>> Have a thorough look at the various links available at:-
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=reform+of+the+law+relating+to+occupier%27s+liability&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>>
>> Ronald Huttner LL.B (Hons)
>> (Retired) Barrister, Solicitor, Law Lecturer and Legal Researcher
>> Melbourne
>> Victoria
>> Australia
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/11/2008, at 10:21 AM, Buffaloe, Donald wrote:
>>
>>> Please excuse the cross-posting.  I have been researching an issue  
>>> involving the development of tort law and am hoping that someone  
>>> can provide some assistance.  It involves the law of negligence  
>>> and varying degrees of the duty of care owed by the occupier of  
>>> land to visitors divided into the categories trespassers,  
>>> licensees and invitees.  I am looking for a more in-depth  
>>> discussion of this statement:
>>>
>>> The law relating to responsibility on dangerous premises long  
>>> resisted the pervasive trend of measuring the existence and scope  
>>> of duties of care by the broad standards of foreseeability of harm  
>>> and reasonable conduct. Until well into the middle of the  
>>> nineteenth century the prominence and social prestige attached to  
>>> landholding defied all serious challenge to the claim by occupiers  
>>> to be left free to in the enjoyment and exploitation of the  
>>> demesne without subordination to the interest of the general public.
>>> John G. Fleming, An Introduction to the Law of Torts 68 (1985).
>>>
>>> The professor who asked me to research this issue thinks that the  
>>> in-depth discussion would appear in a treatise on the history of  
>>> English law and not a treatise on tort law, periodical article or  
>>> case law.  We have several treaties on the history of English law,  
>>> including Holdsworth, William S., A history of English law, 7th  
>>> ed.; edited by A.L. Goodhart and H.G. Hanbury (1956-1966) and  
>>> Fifoot, C. H. S., History and sources of the common law: tort and  
>>> contract (1949).  I could not find anything in these treatises.
>>>
>>> I have also looked in Blackstone, Commentaries; Stephen’s  
>>> Commentaries on the Laws of England and various treatises on tort  
>>> law: Fleming, Salmond, and Clerk & Lindsell.  When I have found  
>>> some discussion of this, it is usually under the index entry  
>>> “occupier”.  I have also been able to find relevant materials  
>>> using the table of contents under the broad category “negligence”  
>>> and the sub-category “duty of care”.
>>>
>>> I would be very grateful if anyone has any suggestions on new ways  
>>> to approach this project or sources that would contain this in- 
>>> depth discussion.  Thank you.
>>>
>>> Don Buffaloe
>>> Senior Research Services Librarian
>>> Pepperdine University School of Law
>>> 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy.
>>> Malibu CA 90263
>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>> Telephone: (310) 506-4823  Fax: (310) 506-4836
>>
>
Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ronald Huttner <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 7 November 2008 11:02:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask], Donald Buffaloe <[log in to unmask] 
> >
> Subject: [LAW-LIB:57203] Fwd: English Tort Law History   -  Where To  
> Research It   -   A Further Reference For You
>
> See also a useful Australian article at http://www.simpsons.com.au/documents/visarts/visarts89/18Dutyof.pdf
> There is a reference in it to the Occupier's Liability Act 1983,  
> which was introduced in my State of Victoria in that year.
> See now the Victorian Wrongs Act 1958 (as amended) Part IIA -  
> dealing specifically with Occupier's Liability.
> It is viewable at:-
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/wa1958111/
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Ronald Huttner <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: 7 November 2008 10:45:47 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask], Donald Buffaloe <[log in to unmask] 
>> >
>> Subject: Fwd: [LAW-LIB:57200] English Tort Law History   -  Where  
>> To Research It   -   A Further Reference For You
>>
>> See also the very useful discussion of this topic in the decision  
>> of the High Court Of Australia (the highest court in our judicial  
>> hierarchy) in Hackshaw v. Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614 (11 December  
>> 1984) at:-
>> http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1984/84.html?query=occupier's%20liability
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Ronald Huttner <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: 7 November 2008 10:35:35 AM
>>> To: [log in to unmask], Donald Buffaloe <[log in to unmask] 
>>> >
>>> Subject: Re: [LAW-LIB:57200] English Tort Law History   -  Where  
>>> To Research It
>>>
>>> Don,
>>> The law relating to occupier's liability has been reformed, and  
>>> assimilated to the general law of negligence, in heaps of common- 
>>> law jurisdictions around the world now.
>>> What would be a more productive way in which to research your  
>>> Professor's question would be to concentrate on pinning down the  
>>> reports of the many law reform commissions and agencies that  
>>> examined carefully the need for reform in this area of tort law.
>>> Have a thorough look at the various links available at:-
>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=reform+of+the+law+relating+to+occupier%27s+liability&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images
>>>
>>> Ronald Huttner LL.B (Hons)
>>> (Retired) Barrister, Solicitor, Law Lecturer and Legal Researcher
>>> Melbourne
>>> Victoria
>>> Australia
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/11/2008, at 10:21 AM, Buffaloe, Donald wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please excuse the cross-posting.  I have been researching an  
>>>> issue involving the development of tort law and am hoping that  
>>>> someone can provide some assistance.  It involves the law of  
>>>> negligence and varying degrees of the duty of care owed by the  
>>>> occupier of land to visitors divided into the categories  
>>>> trespassers, licensees and invitees.  I am looking for a more in- 
>>>> depth discussion of this statement:
>>>>
>>>> The law relating to responsibility on dangerous premises long  
>>>> resisted the pervasive trend of measuring the existence and scope  
>>>> of duties of care by the broad standards of foreseeability of  
>>>> harm and reasonable conduct. Until well into the middle of the  
>>>> nineteenth century the prominence and social prestige attached to  
>>>> landholding defied all serious challenge to the claim by  
>>>> occupiers to be left free to in the enjoyment and exploitation of  
>>>> the demesne without subordination to the interest of the general  
>>>> public.
>>>> John G. Fleming, An Introduction to the Law of Torts 68 (1985).
>>>>
>>>> The professor who asked me to research this issue thinks that the  
>>>> in-depth discussion would appear in a treatise on the history of  
>>>> English law and not a treatise on tort law, periodical article or  
>>>> case law.  We have several treaties on the history of English  
>>>> law, including Holdsworth, William S., A history of English law,  
>>>> 7th ed.; edited by A.L. Goodhart and H.G. Hanbury (1956-1966) and  
>>>> Fifoot, C. H. S., History and sources of the common law: tort and  
>>>> contract (1949).  I could not find anything in these treatises.
>>>>
>>>> I have also looked in Blackstone, Commentaries; Stephen’s  
>>>> Commentaries on the Laws of England and various treatises on tort  
>>>> law: Fleming, Salmond, and Clerk & Lindsell.  When I have found  
>>>> some discussion of this, it is usually under the index entry  
>>>> “occupier”.  I have also been able to find relevant materials  
>>>> using the table of contents under the broad category “negligence”  
>>>> and the sub-category “duty of care”.
>>>>
>>>> I would be very grateful if anyone has any suggestions on new  
>>>> ways to approach this project or sources that would contain this  
>>>> in-depth discussion.  Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Don Buffaloe
>>>> Senior Research Services Librarian
>>>> Pepperdine University School of Law
>>>> 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy.
>>>> Malibu CA 90263
>>>> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Telephone: (310) 506-4823  Fax: (310) 506-4836
>>>
>>
>


[log in to unmask]: Use this address for postings and replies - Email text body 'SIGNOFF int-law' to: [log in to unmask]
**DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this list are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CIESIN, its staff, or CIESIN's sponsors.