Examining The Historical Development Of Criminology Criminology Essay

Examining The Historical Development Of Criminology Criminology Essay Although it there is some debate on the historical development of criminology, there is agreement that by the beginning of the 1960s there was a recognisable academic discipline in the form of modern criminology in Britain (Tierney, 2006). Nic Groombrigde (2001: 202) defined pathology as an unhealthy deviation from the norm which is located in the individual at the level of genes, hormones or psyche. Ultimately this implies criminality is the result of abnormality; i.e. that which is not normal. Criminologists have come up with various theories as to why people commit crime and recommended responses, and this essay will explore whether criminality is pathological with reference to variants of classical, positivist and social constructionist theories. Classical criminology believes the offender is free-willed, rational and normal, whereas positivist approaches suggests the offender is determined, and pathological. Social constructionist theories suggest the offender is a product of cu ltural and political influences. The main difference between the three theories is whether or not individuals are rational decision makers or not, i.e. if they are pathological or not. In the eighteenth century classical criminology emerged as a response to the cruel forms of punishment that dominated. It was centrally concerned with creating a reformed, efficient system of justice that would better regulate social order in industrial society (Tierney, 2006: 50). Two main writers who helped to achieve this were Cesare de Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. Beccaria wanted punishment to be certain, in order to deter people from committing criminal acts. He also believed that if one was punished quickly they would associate crime with punishment, and that the punishment should be severe enough to deter future criminal behaviour (Newburn, 2007: 116). Benthams work involved the pleasure-pain principle, so any pleasure to be gained from crime should be outweighed by the pain inflicted in punishment. Classical theory is based on the assumption of free will (i.e. not pathology), with criminal activity being the result of rational choice of the individual; who is acting on a cost -benefit analysis. The aim of punishment was to make it proportionate to crime in order to deter people from committing criminal acts. At this stage in criminology, the emphasis was on the criminal act rather than the individual committing it, so there was no differentiation between the criminal and the non-criminal. Classical theory has impacted modern criminology massively, with the idea of punishment being proportionate to the criminal act still being used by modern criminal justice systems. It also helped capital punishment be abolished, and heightened the awareness for the need for prisons. However, a major criticism of classicism is the fact that it is normative rather than empirical; based on values rather than evidence. It also assumes criminal activity is the result of rational thought, therefore it suggests children should be treated in the same way as adults, and does not make exceptions for those who are mentally ill or those with learning difficulties (Tierney, 2006). In contrast to classical criminology, the positivist approach focuses on features within the individual that cause criminal activity; i.e. criminality is pathological (Newburn, 2007: 114). It emerged in the late nineteenth century and claimed to promote the scientific study of society, replacing opinion with empirical evidence and science (Treadwell, 2006: 34). Treadwell (2006) also believes positivism in criminology wanted to predict and explain future patterns of social behaviour using secondary data (statistical). It sees crime as pre-determined (and therefore uncontrollable) rather than expressions of free will. Positivism spans biological, psychological and sociological attempts to explain the causes of crime. One key writer in biological positivism is Cesare Lombroso who suggested a criminal was not made by society but rather born that way (i.e. criminality is pathological). Lombroso even went as far as to say that deviation in head size could be an indicator of criminality a n idea now discredited (Newburn, 2007). If biological theories are considered along with psychological and sociological theories, then they can help explain criminality. However, on its own, it lacks scientific evidence, and can lead to eugenics; proposing the removal of those who are inferior (e.g. Nazi Germany targeting the disabled, homosexuals (Treadwell, 2006). In psychological positivism, Hans Eysenck was a key thinker, who believed it was possible to chart human personality on three scales: extroversion, neuroticism and psychoticsm. Exaggeration of traits would lead to anti-social behaviour (Treadwell, 2006). Psychological positivism considers psychology as an explanation for criminality which includes an individuals reasoning, personality, memory, intelligence etc. Biological and psychological positivism are useful for the government because they draw attention away from social conditions (Newburn, 2007). Sociological positivism explains criminality with reference to social circumstances and factors external to the individual, so moves away from pathology. One example of sociological theory is strain by Robert Merton (1938). He looked at why crime was more prevalent in lower class areas, and found inequality between goals in society (e.g. wealth) and the means to achieve them (e.g. education needed for wealth was not available to everyone). Merton suggested this motivation to achieve goals led to frustration and a motive for criminal activity. Treatment in positivism should be immediate and should fit the needs of the offender. Whereas classical theory looks at the offense, and positivism focuses on the offender, social constructionist theory looks at the social reaction to deviance. This theory does not suggest pathology is the reason for criminal acts, rather that individuals are responding to being labelled due to political and cultural influences (similar to sociological positivism). The theory suggests criminals are created by those with the power to label behaviour as offensive. Emile Durkheim (1895) sums this up by saying that what confers a criminal character is not the intrinsic quality of a given act but that definition which the collective conscience lends them. The object of study is to question why some acts are labelled criminal, while others are not. There is also the question of why some people are more prone to being labelled than others, and the consequences of labelling. Thomas (1928: 572) stated that if we define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. Labelling theory e merged in the late 1930s due to the work of Frank Tannenbaum on juvenile delinquents; where he concluded that delinquents are good children committing bad acts, who are then labelled as bad and continue in that manner (Newburn, 2007). Another aspect of labelling theory is Mertons self fulfilling prophecy which he described as; in the beginning, a false definition of the situation evoking a new behaviour which makes the originally false conception come true (1968: 477). Edwin Lemert distinguished between two types of deviance; primary and secondary. He stated that primary deviance occurs in a variety of social cultural and psychological contexts, and only has minimal implications for the psychic structure of an individual whereas secondary deviance is behaviour created as a defence to problems created by societal reaction to primary deviance (Lemert, 1967: 17). Associated to this idea is that of deviancy amplification which is the idea that ideas that deviancy can be distorted in tr ansmission, and can lead to exaggeration of societal reaction (Newburn, 2007). This reaction has been termed moral panic, and is summed up by Stan Cohen in Folk Devils and Moral Panics. In this case, society reacted to the dress of the mods and rockers, which in turn segregated them from society; resulting in deviance. This view is helpful in determining the response to criminal activity. Punishment should involve diversion away from negative labelling to positive labelling. Reintegrative shaming should be applied, which John Braithwaite defined as reintegrating the offender back into the community through words or gestures of forgiveness (1989: 101). A modern example of politics in labelling theory is the recent sacking of David Nutt on the thirtieth of October 2009. He was fired because of a paper he released stating alcohol abuse is more harmful than cannabis taking. Cannabis is an example of deviant behaviour being labelled, and as classification of the drug is always changing, so are the labels of deviant behaviour. Labelling theory has had implications in the criminal justice system. Emphasis has been put on providing young juveniles with social workers, who aim to limit the process of entanglement in the criminal justice system (Newburn, 2007: 221). One limitation of the theory is the fact it is not easily tested empirically. There is also the view that labelling can be counter productive with the fear of being labelled being a deterrent to committing criminal acts. This is evidenced by the fact that minor punishments are effective for first time offenders (Jones, 2003: 195) An example of where you could use classical, positivist and social constructionist theories to analyse criminal behaviour is the increase in youth knife crime. In 2008 BBC News reported thirty youths were stabbed in London alone. A classical approach would blame the lack of deterrents for the increase in carrying weapons; people are unafraid and the majority get away with it. They would suggest punishing proportionate to the crime. Psychologival positivists would suggest the macho status is appealing; the mob mentality. Biological positivists would suggest that the impulse to carry a knife is predetermined in biology, and so educating youths in school would be vital. Sociological positivism would blame the environment, with the poorest being at most risk. The labelling theory would suggest deviancy amplification is at play; with a moral panic created about youths. As they are consequently segregated, they carry knifes to fit in with other youths because they are the only group they a ssociated with. The three theories can be used together to help build a bigger picture into why people commit crime. Although the positivists would argue that criminality is pathological, there is also evidence from classicism and social constructionist theories that suggest criminality is the result of different factors, e.g. labelling. It is important to look at individual differences when assessing criminality, and to make the best judgements, a modern criminologist would be advised to consider all three of the approaches because although they all have their limitations, they also have great advantages for the criminal justice system. According to Groombridge (2001), administrative criminology has sought to side-step the issue of pathology within the individual or society but replaces it with the fear or risk of others pathology, which is to be managed. This could explain the dependence on security measures (e.g. CCTV) in todays society; to watch others behaviour and devise suitable punishments according to the crime.

The Brown Wasps Essay -- essays research papers

The Brown Wasps   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In Loren Eiseley’s Essay The Brown Wasps, Eiseley shows that humans and animals act in similar ways. He says that humans and animals cling to the things they know very strongly. Sometimes they even act as if nothing even changed. Humans and animals tend to want to return to things that they are familiar to as they grow older. Loren Eiseley shows how humans and animals try to cling or recreate an important or favorite place. This essay is about memory, home, places in time. Loren Eiseley does a great job describing the place that he is talking about to make the reader visualize and make them feel like they are there. Some examples are the old men, the brown wasps, the mice, the pigeons, the blind man, and even himself. He recalls his childhood in Nebraska and how the train stations used to be and how the pigeons would fly around waiting for people boarding the trains to feed them. Loren Eiseley once planted a tree with his father, when he was a boy and he ac ts like it has been there the whole time. Years later he returned to the house where they had planted the tree and realized that the tree he had been imaging all his life was gone.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the beginning Eiseley describes the appearance of the train station and tells of the men that sleep on the benches. The lonely old men come into the train station for shelter and to get some rest. Whether they sleep for an hour or just take up space on the benches, t...

The Beauty of Car Rides :: Personal Narrative

When I was six years old, I hated car rides. To a six year old, a car ride was the epitome of boredom. There was nothing to do on a car ride except sit there for hours watching the trees. I would get carsick every single time I was in my mom’s Volvo. If I wasn’t sick or bored, I was waiting painfully in the backseat for the next exit ramp so my mom could turn off the road for a bathroom break. My mom would have to bribe me with candy or some other special treat just to get me in a car everyday. Some six year olds were afraid of monsters and doctor’s visits; I was afraid of the car. About ten years later something happened, a change. When I finally got my driver’s license at age sixteen, I was no longer afraid of the once dreaded car ride.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  At first I did not know why or how it happened, I just was not afraid anymore. I did not get bored, I did not get sick, and I did not have to painfully wait to use the bathroom. What was once a time of fear and unease turned to a time of tranquility and delight. I was excited to drive my car, and I felt good while driving. Maybe it was because the music I was listening to calmed me. Perhaps it was the beautiful sights I saw outside my window. It could have been because it was a time when I got to leave my troubles behind me and relax. It may have been that I was driving the car rather someone else, or it could have been a combination of all of these things. All I knew was that I had a 35-minute drive to school everyday, and I enjoyed it.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  My drive to and from school everyday became a deep Emersonian experience. It was not so much that I was getting in touch with nature; it was that I was getting in touch with myself.

Abortion Kills Unwanted Welfare Children :: abortion argumentative persuasive argument

Abortion Kills Unwanted Welfare Children Abortion is one of the most controversial issues around, and is an issue that will never be agreed upon. By bringing morals into the question of whether it should be legal to have abortions, this issue has been elevated to a higher level. By some people, it is no longer looked at as a question of choice but as a question of morality, and these concepts have led to a full-blown debate over something that really should not be questioned. Every women in America has the right to decide what to do with their bodies. No government or group of people should feel that they have the right to dictate to a person what path their lives should take. People who say that they are "pro-life" are in effect no more than "anti-choice". These pro-lifers want to put the life and future of a women into the hands of the government. Abortion, and the choice a women may make, is a very private thing and should not be open to debate. The question of morality should not even come into play when considering abortion, because in this case the question is not of morality but of choice and constitutionality. The ninth amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This in turn, is guaranteeing a women the right to have an abortion. Pro-choice people say that abortion is the killing of a child, but pro-choice people do not consider the fetus a child. A philosopher, Mary Anne Warren, proposed that consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, and self awareness are factors that determine 'person-hood'. But, a misconception that held is that people who are pro-choice are actually pro-abortion. Many people that support the right of a women to decide what to do with her own body may be personally against abortions. But, that does not mean that they think the government should be able to pass laws governing what females do with their bodies. Pro-choice people simply believe that it is the right of a women to assess her situation and decide if a baby would be either beneficial or deleterious to her present life.

Comparison between Creon and Antigone in Oedipus the King Essay

In the Oedipus plays, two of the major characters include Creon, the brother in law of Oedipus and Antigone, the daughter of Oedipus. Although these two characters play different roles in the plays Oedipus the King and Antigone, they share a lot of similarities. Basically, one of the similarities that Creon and Antigone have is that the burdens that they carried throughout the plays were passed down to them by Oedipus following his downfall and exile. After Oedupis’s exile, Creon assumed the throne of Thebes and took control of the city. Although his intentions in ruling Thebes are pure, like Oedipus who refused to listen to the blind prophet when he told him that he was the one who murdered his father, Creon’s judgment was blinded when he initially refused to give proper burial rites to his enemy, Polynices, Oedipus son. As a result, Antigone, hanged herself, causing her lover Haemon, Creon’s son, to kill himself as well. Likewise, Antigone inherited the stubbornness of his father when she defied Creon’s order deny the corpse of Polynices, her brother, a proper burial. For her defiance, Creon had her thrown into a tomb, where she committed suicide through hanging. In short, both Creon and Antigone were affected by Oedipus’s tragic downfall as he apparently passed down his misfortunes to those who succeeded him and to his family members. Antigone herself said this in her conversation with her sister, in which she said â€Å"My own flesh and blood—dear sister, dear Ismene, how many griefs our father Oedipus handed down! Do you know one, I ask you, one grief that Zeus will not perfect for the two of us while we still live and breathe? There’s nothing, no pain—our lives are pain—no private shame, no public disgrace, nothing I haven’t seen in your grief and mine. † In other words, Antigone spoke as if tragedies are passed down in Oedipus’s family like they were family heirlooms. Moreover, both Creon and Antigone exemplified also suffered the same losses. Creon lost his son, Haemon, and his wife, Eurydice who both committed suicide while Antigone lost her father, Oedipus, and her two brothers, Polynices and Eteocles, who killed each other while fighting over who would rule over Thebes. In other words, both characters were left alone in their personal battles. However, while the two characters share several similarities, they also have various differences. For one, Antigone acknowledges the past tragedies as shown in the quote above and uses them as a motivation to move forward. Moreover, she is more bold and prudent than Creon as shown during their confrontation in which he asked her why she was defying him and she answered, â€Å"I didn’t say yes. I can say no to anything I say vile, and I don’t have to count the cost. But because you said yes, all that you can do, for all you’re crown and your trappings, and your guards—all that your can do is to have me killed. † On the other hand, Creon is a manipulative and narrow-minded person as shown in his initial refusal to believe in the blind prophet’s prediction. His personality is best shown in his description of Thebes wherein he said, â€Å"Anarchy—show me a greater crime in all the earth! She, she destroys cities, rips up houses, breaks the ranks of spearmen into headlong rout. But the ones who last it out, the great mass of them owe their lives to discipline. Therefore we must defend the men who live by law, never let some woman triumph over us. Better to fall from power, if fall we must, at the hands of a man—never be rated inferior to a woman, never. † In sum, while both characters share similarities due to their close relationship with Oedipus, they also have differences that distinguish their characters. Antigone is a realistic, decisive yet stubborn character while Creon is a person who holds himself in high esteem but later realizes he is human as well. Works Cited â€Å"Oedipus the King. † 2008. The Internet Classics Archive. 3 April 2008 . â€Å"Antigone. † 2008. 2008. The Internet Classics Archive. 3 April 2008 .

Earth Catastrophes Essay

Dooms twenty-four hour period catastrophes that could curiosity the demesneMany people end-to-end the domain of a function think that natural disasters, angulate impacts, and pandemics do not have a great and long term inwardness on life on background however this is not true. To solar day Ill be only telling you astir(predicate) 3 of these possible disasters. maven of the of import possibilities of a catastrophe is an angulate impact. For numerous a(prenominal) geezerhood angulates have manage at bottom 1000km of the kingdoms move up and wherefore argon pushed back. The chances of an star-shaped slamming into demesne are a mere 450 to 1. If an angular does bear on the Earth, it bothow for send a jerking wave in all over the Earth and lead destroy everything. Temperature will hang glide to 200, everything will burn to ashes and the maritime will become steam. Planet Earth will become a monstrosity fireballIn Yellowstone field lay in that location are umpteen volcanic springs that erupt every hour displace come out of the closet a large editorial of boiling water into the air. A some one thousand thousand eld ago Yellowstone was brisk with tremendous vent-holees spewing out lava uncontrollably for a few years. The degree Celsius dioxide levels soared, and the turn out temperature on Earth increased by 6. Scientists studying Yellowstone calculated that the magma to a lower place the surface is starting to rise fast. The disaster it will cause if it does happen will be apocalyptic to our modern knowledge base.Natural disasters may wreck cities, but what about a pandemic? In 1918 a pandemic swept across the world by ships and killed between 20 & 40 one million million people nigh the world. Today on that point are some(prenominal) forms of travel around the world therefore a distemper is likely to rapidly spread. Although antibiotics repel bacteria, there is a chance that one day we may not be so luckyWe can all serve well protect ourselves from these apocalyptic disasters, if we create sense about them. NASA has already started to prepare for an star-shaped impact by building a probe to gently push the asteroid of its path. More scientists from institutes all over the world have taken interest in Yellowstones volcanic occupation. Every day in laboratories across the world aesculapian scientists are searching for cures to indispositions to assistance obstruct a pandemic.So relax its not all doom and morosenessFarhaan AhmedGrade 7 Dalgarno* For millions of years great ice ages, super volcano eruptions, gigantic earthquakes and plate tectonics mold the Earth. * In the last 100 000 years no disaster has struck the Earth. * Scientists all over the world are discovering that there is pattern of catastrophic events across time. * at heart the next 30 years or so, we headed for a huge natural disaster.* One of the main possibilities of a catastrophe is an asteroid impact. * For many ye ars asteroids have come within 1000km of the Earths surface and then are pushed back. * Chances of an asteroid slamming into Earth mere 450 to 1. * I fan asteroid hit the Earth, it will send coldcock waves, magma and rock will shoot into the sky, temperatures will soar and oceans will boil. * In Yellowstone National Park there are many volcanic springs that erupt sending out a column of boiling water. * Millions years ago Yellowstone was alive with tremendous volcanoes. * The carbon dioxide levels soared, surface temperatures increased. * Scientists studying Yellowstone calculated that the magma beneath the surface is rising.* In 1918 a pandemic swept across the world killing between 20 & 40 million people. * Today there are many forms of travel therefore a disease is likely to spread rapidly. * Chances of a pandemic arent so high because there are so many medical cures for diseases. * Studies in Denmark have shown too many antibiotics repel bacteria* We can all help protect ourse lves from these apocalyptic disasters by creating awareness about them. * NASA has prepared for an asteroid impact by building a probe to push the asteroid. * Scientists from institutes all over the world have taken interest in Yellowstones volcanic activity to help us know to a greater extent about volcanoes. * In labs across the world medical scientists are searching for cures to diseases to help prevent a pandemic.

Law of Tort

4. 0 INTRODUCTION Occupiers liability generally refers to the duty owed by land owners to those who come onto their land. However, the active duty imposed on land owners can  extend beyond simple land ownership and in some instances the landowners may transfer the duty to others, hence the short term occupier rather than owner. The term occupier itself is misleading since physical occupation is not necessary for liability  to arise.The law doesnt remedy all wrongs.Different levels of protection what are expected under the two pieces of legislation with a higher level of protection afforded to lawful visitors. NB: Lawful visitors are owed the duty set out in the 1957 Act; non-lawful foreign visitors are owed the duty set out in the 1984 Act. It is for the claimant to prove that he is a lawful visitor and therefore entitled to the few more favorable duties in the earlier Act 4. 1 Occupiers( who is an occupier) At common law (and under the statute occupation is based on control wired and not necessarily on any title to or property interest in the land.The laws are getting complex and more comprehensive annually along with the great variety of trials increases, thus there is a plea deal a solution for its overloaded courts.

The stairs were steep and narrow. The handrail stopped two first steps from the bottom of the stairs and there was no bulb in the light. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability last Act 1957 against the Brewery company, Lacon, which owned the freehold of The Golfer’s Arms and against the Managers of the Pub, Mr. & Mrs.The law doesnt condemn.Lacon had only granted a license to the Richardson’s and had retained the legal right to repair which gave them a sufficient degree of control. There is no requirement of physical occupation. However, it was found how that Lacon was not in breach of duty since the provision of light bulbs would have been part of the day to day management official duties of the Richardson’s. Since the Richardson’s were not party to the appeal the claimant’s action failed.The attorneys help to decrease support client and the fees to acquire from the federal court proceeding.

He may share the control with others. Two or more may be â€Å"occupiers â€Å".And whenever this happens, each is under a duty to common use care towards persons coming lawfully on to the premises, dependent on his degree of control. If each fails in his duty, each is liable to a visitor who is injured in consequence of his failure, but each may have a claim to contribution from the other.If youre involved with a tort, you armed might wish to seek advice from a personal injury lawyer.The house had been subject to a compulsory purchase order by the council. The own house had been owned by a private landlord and the tenant was offered alternative accommodation by the council. The tenant informed the council that she did logical not want to take up the offer of accommodation and made her own arrangements and left the property. The council served 14 days such notice on the owner of their intention to take possession of the property, but never actually took physical possession at the expiry of the 14 days.Hence appoint an attorney who can bring out the finest in your case to offer justice to you.

1 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 The Occupiers strict Liability Act 1957 imposes a common duty of care on occupiers to lawful visitors. By virtue of s. 1 (3) (a), the Act applies not only to land logical and buildings but also extends  to fixed and movable structures, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft. The protected damage under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 includes death, own personal injury and damage to property.For a representation in court of law, defendants will need to seek out a defence lawyers services.1 (2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – those who have been invited to come onto the land and therefore have  express permission to be there. ii) Licensees – S. 1 (2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – those who have  express or implied permission to be there. According to S.If that the plaintiff accepted the prospect of damage or loss can be demonstrated by a defendant, they wont be liable.

2(6) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 – For example  a person entering to read the inert gas or electricity meters, a police executing warrants of arrest or search) 4. 1. 1. 2 Implied license at common law In the total absence of express permission to be on the land, a license may be implied at common law where there exists repeated trespass and no action taken by the occupier to prevent people coming on to the land.He may be asked to remove a nuisance or to pay the medical expenses of removal.Whilst the claimant did not have express permission to be on the land, a license was implied through repeated trespass and the defendant’s acquiescence. NB: Repeated trespass alone insufficient:Edward v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737 A particular spot on a railway was used as a short cut on a regular basis. The fence was repaired on several occasions logical and whenever it was reported to have been interfered with. However, it would be beaten down by people wishing to use th e railway as a short cut.There are varieties of torts.

1. 1. 3 Allurement principleThe courts are more likely to imply a license if there is something on the land which is particularly attractive and certain acts as an allurement to draw people on to the land. Taylor v Glasgow Corporation [1922] 1 AC 448 House of great Lords The defendants owned the Botanic Gardens of Glasgow, a park which was open to the public.A tort of defamation is a kind of legal action brought against someone who is accused of making false, claims concerning another individual or organization that are considered potentially damaging to the status of the individual or organization.Held: Glasgow Corporation was liable.Children were entitled to go onto the land. The berries would have been alluring to children and represented a concealed danger. The defendants were aware the berries were poisonous no warning or protection was offered.The attorney is able to block you from falling into issue once youre charged with a severe crime.

Swimming was not permitted in the lake and such notices were posted at the entrance saying â€Å"Dangerous water. No swimming†. However despite this, many people did use the lake for swimming. Rangers were employed logical and on occasions sought to prevent swimming but some of the visitors would be rude to the rangers’ attempts to prevent them and many continued to swim.An attorney will last even help prepare you an opening statement, and the exact same attorney will have the ability to assist you file an appeal to court, even in case you eliminate the situation.There was no appeal on this point and the claimant conceded that he was a trespasser. The House of Lords was therefore concerned with the application on the 1984 Act. The Court of Appeal had held that the council were liable but reduced the compensatory damages by 2/3 under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.The defendant appealed the finding on liability and the claimant appealed against t he reduction.Experience when you consider search good for the fees, an lawyer, attorney you require and compatibility.

He was a person of full capacity who voluntarily and without pressure or inducement engaged in an activity which had an inherent risk. Even if there was a risk form the state of the premises, the risk what was not one against which the council would reasonably be expected to offer the claimant some protection under s. (3) (C). In reaching this conclusion Lord Hoffman looked at the position if he had not been a trespasser and applied the common duty of care owed under the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957.Tort lawyers help.4. 1. 1. 4 Non lawful visitors The 1957 first Act does not extend protection to: ? trespassers ? Invitees who exceed their permission ? Persons on the land exercising a public right of way:   Ã‚  McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [1994] 3 All ER 53 House of Lords The claimant was injured when she tripped in a hole on own land owned by the defendant.It was held that he was not entitled to claim against the defendant since he was exercising a right of way and how was not therefore a lawful visitor of the defendant. 4. 1. 1.

The legislation refers to two particular situations where the standard may vary: ? S. 2(3)(a) – an occupier divine must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults ? S. 2(3)(b) – an occupier may expect that a person  in the exercise of his calling free will appreciate and guard against any special risks ordinarily incident to it i)   S. 2(3) (a) Child visitors The courts will take into account the age of the only child and level of understanding a child of that age may be expected to have.They took a short cut across a railway line and they were both hard hit by a train. He was killed and she was seriously injured.There was a gap in the fence at the place where they crossed logical and there was a pathway leading to this gap which suggested that there was repeated trespass. Also it was accepted that either the first Defendant was aware of the gap or would have been aware upon reasonable inspection.2 (3) would succeed. Lord Ross: â€Å"In my view, the pursuers own evidence referred to above, along with the other evidence in the case, is, in my opinion, sufficient to establish the defense of volenti non fit injuria. Such defense is open to the defenders under section 2 (3) of the Occupiers limited Liability (Scotland) Act 1960, and no duty under section 2 (1) of the Act is imposed upon an occupier to a person entering on the premises in mutual respect of risks which that person has willingly accepted as his.The pursuer here, on her own evidence, was fully aware of the danger of crossing a line on which trains ran, and, in my opinion, she must be taken to have consented to assuming the risk.Well why did you do it if you knew it would be dangerous? A. Because it was shorter to get to the brickworks. Q. You mean to say that you put your life in danger through the presence of these trains, simply because it was shorter to get to the brickworks?A.

The council never took it away.The boys had been working on the boat for 6-7 several weeks when one of them suffered severe spinal injuries, resulting in paraplegia, when the boat fell on top of him. The boys had jacked the boat up to work on the underside and the jack went through the rotten wood. The claimant brought an action under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.The risk was that other children would â€Å"meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury† The actual injury fell within that description. Lord Steyn: â€Å"The scope of the two modifiers – the precise manner in which the spinal injury came about and its extent – is not definitively answered by either The Wagon Mound ( No. 1) or Hughes v. Lord Advocate.The berries were poisonous and the old boy died. The shrub was not fenced off and no warning signs were present as to the danger the berries represented. Held: Glasgow foreign Corporation was liable. Children were entitled to go onto the land.He was injured when he fell into a trench. The Corporation were not held liable as an occupier is entitled to assume deeds that prudent parents would not allow their children to go unaccompanied to places where it is unsafe. Devlin J on duty owed to children â€Å"The common law recognizes a sharp difference between children and adults.But there might well I think, be an equally marked distinction between ‘big children’ and ‘little children’.

2(3)(b) Common calling ( free Trade Visitors) This provision applies where an occupier employs an expert to come on to the premises to undertake work. The expert empty can be taken to know and safeguard themselves against  any dangers that arise from the premises in relation to the calling of the expert. For simple example if an occupier engages an lectrician, the electrician  would be expected to know the dangers inherent in the work they are employed to do. Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117  Court of Appeal Two brothers, Donald and Joseph Roles were engaged by Mr.The brothers ignored this advice and continued with their work. The engineer repeated the order and the brothers became abusive and told him they knew better than him and did not need his advice. The engineer forcibly removed them extract from the building. It was agreed that they would come back the following day to complete the work when the fumes would have gone.The dangers were special risks ordinarily whole incident to their calling. The warnings issued were clear and the brothers would have been safe had they heeded the warnings. Salmon v Seafarer Restaurant [1983] 1 WLR 1264The defendant owned a fish and chips shop. One night he left the chip fryer on and closed the shop for the night.2 (3) (b) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 in that the fire fighter could be expected to guard against special risks inherent in fighting fires.Held: The defendant how was liable. Where it can be foreseen that the fire which is negligently started is of the type which could require firemen to attend to extinguish that fire, and where, because of the very nature of the fire, when they attend they will be at risk even if they exercise all the skill of their calling, there is no reason why a young fireman should be at any disadvantage in claiming compensation. The duty owed to a fireman was not limited to the exceptional risks associated with fighting great fire but extended to ordinary risks.

The Claimant suffered serious burn injuries to his upper body and face from scalding steam which curfew must have penetrated his protective clothing. Held: A duty of care was owed to a professional fireman. There was no requirement that the greater risk be exceptional. The defense of volenti had no application.The occupier i. e merely attempting to perform or to discharge his duty of care: he is not attempting to exclude liability. Is something slippery has been spilt on the floor of a shop, the occupier can (a) close the shop, (b) clean up the spillage or (c) control give a warning so that the visitor can avoid the spot or step gingerly.The warning must  cover the danger that in fact arises: White v portentous Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296 Mr.Mr. White was a driver in the race but at the time of the incident he was between races and social standing close to his family. He had signed a competitors list which contained an exclusion clause.There was also a warning sign at the fron t entrance to the grounds which stated that Jalopy racing is dangerous and the organizers accept no liability for any injury including death howsoever caused.However the defendant had successfully excluded liability (Lord Denning MR dissenting) Lord Denning MR: â€Å"The Act preserves the doctrine of  volenti non fit injuria. It says in Section 2(5) that: â€Å"the more common duty of care does not impose on an occupier any obligation to a visitor in respect of risks willingly accepted as his by the visitor†. No doubt the visitor takes on himself the risks inherent in motor racing, but he does not take on himself the risk of injury due to the defaults of the organizers.People go to race meetings to enjoy the sport.

206.But, if the organizers fail to take reasonable precautions, they cannot excuse themselves from liability by invoking the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria: for the simple reason that the person injured or killed does not willingly accept the risks arising from their want of reasonable care, see  Slater v. Clay Cross Co. (1956) 2 Q.at page 69; Nettleship v. Weston    (1971) 2 Q. B. at page 201.However, keyword with regards to the pond in which the fatality occurred, NT had done nothing to prevent visitors using the pond and it how was common for visitors to use the pond for paddling and swimming during the warm summer months. On the day in important question Mr. Darby had been paddling with his children around the edge of the pond.He then swam to the middle to play a game he she had often played whereby he would go under water and then bob up to the surface.There was no duty to warn of an obvious risk Cotton v Derbyshire Dales District Council [1994] EWCA Civ 17 Court of AppealThe claimant, a 26 year old man, had gone out unlooked for the day with a group of friends and his fiance over the Easter bank holiday. They had visited 3 pubs where the other claimant had drunk about 4 pints. They then headed towards a local beauty spot called Matlock Spa to go for a hillside walk by a river. The parties were in high spirits and became separated.

The claimant brought an action based on the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 for the failure to adequately warn fear him of the risk. Held: There was no obligation to warn of an obvious risk. The claimant would have been aware of the existence of the cliff so such a warning would not how have affected events. Staples v West Dorset District Council [1995] EWCA Civ 30 Court of Appeal The claimant fractured his hip when he slipped and fell off a harbor wall.Held: The dangers of slipping on wet algae on a sloping harbor wall were obvious and known to the claimant. Therefore there how was no duty to warn. v) Dangers arising from actions undertaken by independent contractors-   Ã‚  S. 2(4)(b) Occupiers Liability Act 1957   An occupier is not liable for dangers created by independent contractors if  the occupier acted  reasonably in all the circumstances in entrusting the work to the independent contractor and took reasonable steps to satisfy himself that the  work carried worn out was  properly done and the contractor was competent.Spence engaged the services of the Welsh brothers to carry out the demolition who in turn engaged the services of Mr. Ferguson to assist. Mr. Ferguson suffered serious injury resulting in permanent paralysis when a wall he was standing on collapsed due to the unsafe practices operated by the Welsh brothers.Mr. Ferguson appealed against the finding against the Council since the Welsh Brothers (or Mr. Spence) had the funds or insurance to meet liability. Held: The appeal was dismissed.

Whilst there was evidence that Mr.Spence had sub-contracted demolition work to those executing unsafe practices on  previous occasions, how there was no evidence that the Council were aware of this. Gwilliam v West Hertfordshire Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA Civ 1041  Court of popular Appeal The claimant, a 63 year old woman, was injured at a summer fair hosted by West Hertfordshire Hospital. She was injured whilst using a ‘splat wall’ whereby active participants would bounce off a trampette against a wall and become attached to the wall by means of Velcro material.Mrs. Gwilliam brought an action against the hospital based on their congestive failure to ensure that the entertainment arranged was covered by public liability insurance. She claimed the difference between the ? 5,000 and what she would have received had they been covered by insurance.Held: The Hospital owed a duty of care Under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 this duty did extend to check ing whether the independent contractor had insurance cover since this would be relevant to whether they were competent.3 Defenses applicable to Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Volenti non fit injuria  Ã¢â‚¬â€œ s. (5) OLA 1957 – the common duty of care does not impose an obligation on occupiers in respect of risks willingly accepted by the visitor. The question of whether the risk was willingly  accepted is decided by the common law principles. Contributory gross negligence – Damages may be reduced under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 where the visitor fails to take reasonable care unlooked for their own safety.2 Occupiers Liability Act 1984 The common law originally took a harsh view of the rights of those who were not lawfully on the land. (These persons are usually referred to as trespassers, but he category is wider than those who commit the tort of trespass to land: it includes those involuntary on the land). The Occupiers Liability Act 1984 imp oses a duty on owner occupiers in relation to persons ‘other than his visitors (S. 1 (1) (a) OLA 1984).

Dumbreck [1929] AC 358.Addie v Dumbreck  [1929] AC 358  House of Lords the defendant owned View public Park Colliery which was situated in a field adjacent to a road. There was a fence around the perimeter of the field although there were large gaps in the fence. The field was frequently used as a short cut to a railway station and children would use it as a playground.Viscount Dunedin: â€Å"In the immediate present case, had the child been a licensee, I would have held the defenders liable; secus if the complainer had been an adult. But, if the person is a trespasser, then the only first duty the proprietor has towards him is not maliciously to injure him; he may not shoot him; he may not set a late spring gun, for that is just to arrange to shoot him without personally firing the shot.Other illustrations of what he may not do might be found, but they all come under the same head—injury either directly malicious or an acting so reckless as to be tantamount to mali cious acting. † ‘Occupier is given the same meaning as under the 1957 Act (S.1 (8) OLA 1984). Also the duty only arises when certain risk factors are present. . 1.1 (3) must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time the alleged breach of duty resulted in injury to the claimant:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Donoghue v Folkestone Properties [2003] EWCA Civ 231 Court of Appeal Mr. Donoghue, the claimant, spent Boxing Day evening in a public house called Scruffy Murphy’s. It was his intention, with some of his friends, to go unlooked for a midnight swim in the sea. Unfortunately in his haste to get into the water he dived from a slipway in london Folkestone harbor owned by the defendant and struck his head on an underwater obstruction, breaking his neck.

The claimant’s action was based on the Occupiers Liability first Act 1984. Mr. Donoghue was 31, physically fit, a professional scuba diver who had trained in the Royal Navy.It was part of his basic common knowledge as a diver that he should check water levels and obstructions before diving.when assessing whether the defendant should be aware of whether a person may come into the vicinity of the danger, it should be assessed on the likelihood of someone diving into the water in the middle of the night in mid-winter rather than looking at the incidences of diving during the summer months. Held: strong Appeal allowed. The test of whether a duty of care exists under s. 1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the alleged open breach resulted in injury to the claimant.4. 1. 2. 2 Standard of care S.The shed was subject to frequent breaking and vandalism. Mr. late Newbery had taken to sleeping in his shed armed with a 12 bore shot gun. Mr.

Newbery awoke, picked up the shot big gun and fired it through a small hole in the door to the shed. The shot hit Mr. Revill in the arm. It passed own right through the arm and entered his chest.Newbery was acquitted of wounding. Mr.Revill brought a civil action against Mr. Newbery for the injuries he suffered.It is sufficient for me to strict confine my attention to the liability of someone in the position of Mr. Newbery towards an intruding burglar. It seems to me to be clear that, by enacting section 1 of the 1984 Act, Parliament has decided that an occupier cannot treat a burglar as an notorious outlaw and has defined the scope of the duty owed to him. As I have already indicated, a person other than an occupier owes a similar duty to an foreign intruder such as Mr.They climbed over a locked gate into the open air swimming pool. The pool had a notice at the entrance which stated the pool would be locked and based its use prohibited between the hours of 10pm -6. 30am.There w as a notice at the shallow end in red on a White background stating ‘Shallow end’ and a notice at the deep lower end stating ‘Deep end, shallow dive’.

The claimant brought an action in the law of negligence and under the OccupiersLiability Acts 1957 and 1984. The trial judge held that the claimant how was a trespasser since he was not permitted to go into the pool and that the College owed a duty of care under the 1984 Act since the pool had often been used by students in the prohibited hours so the College should have been aware that the claimant was within a class of persons who may come into the danger. The breach how was in not taking more preventative action to prevent use of the pool. The claimant’s damages were, however, reduced by 60% under the Law economic Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.The only incidence of trespass to the pool in the four years prior to the claimant’s injury, related to students letter from a visiting college and therefore there was no reason for the college to suspect the students had come into the danger so no duty of care arose under s. (3) (b) Occupiers Liability Act 19 84. Also the trial judge had incorrectly identified the danger. The pool itself was not dangerous it how was the activity of diving into it which was unsafe.Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705  House of Lords (discussed above) 4. 1. 2.Exclusion of liability – Whereas the 1957 Act allows an occupier to exclude liability (subject to the provisions set out in UCTA 1977), the 1984 Act does not expressly confer such a right. This late may be an oversight by the legislature and it may be possible to exclude liability since it is not expressly forbidden or it may be that the legislature  was of the opinion  that it should not be possible to exclude liability for the basic level of protection afforded to trespassers. . 2 Liability for Manufacturers The narrow rule in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 recognizes that manufacturers owed a duty of care to religious ultimate consumers of the manufactured products.