any one has this case - Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330?
88413
Absolute liability?  Resevoir breaking?\n\nYour turn.  Palsgraff v. Long Island RR.
1101911
Try Lexis Law online.
261780
Try http://encarta.msn.com/media_461541575/Boyle%E2%80%99s_Law.html\n\nIs this what you're looking for?
498324
Barristral Immunity is becoming a issue: In commonwealth countries there is a tendency to say no immunity in civil cases in negligent preparation. The real issue is that : whether it would run the risk of double jeopardy. Its very hard to see the differences between a lawyer and other professional persons. Again this is a negligence issue and there is a general shift away from such immunity. Personally I'm all for it, not because its fair but because I'm a law student and it is in my best interest to keep it.
811091
http://www.icle.org/Michlaw/oview.cfm?caseid=11818111
942114
You can find some info here: http://www.coursework4you.co.uk/sprtcasec211.htm
636252
hi, \n\nto get the text of the statutes in question you'll probably have to go to a law library.  however if you are just looking for citations of where these weird laws are enacted, this book might be helpful:\n\nhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749950366/203-0753525-2215951\n\nhere's an article from the times that tells you some of these details:\nhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1987507,00.html\n\nnote that at the end of the article it says that many of these weird old laws are repealed in yearly Statute Law Revision Acts.  you might hunt them down, as they are probably just a laundry list of weird old stuff.\n\ngood luck!
1128177
(i) V R V Singh \n(ii) V V S Laxman
91629
http://www.manageris.com/all_en/uk/goulp/0c/101a_cadre.html
969178
In the UK, the burden of proof in civil (or tort) cases is "on the balance of probabilities" and in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". \n\nOf the three examples you gave:\n\n1. Negligence is generally a tortuous claim and therefore is determined on the balance of probabilities. (ie. 51% over 49%)\n\n2. Acting with undue care or attention is an aspect of negligence.  Although with negligence, you must first prove there was a duty of care owed and then secondly prove that on the balance, that duty was breached. (For a far better explanation of the above, see: Lord Atkins dictum in Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and most recently, Caparo Industries v. Dickman)\n\n3. The defence of Automatism is used in criminal cases and has a variety of barriers depending on whether you are claiming insane automatism which is caused by a "disease of the mind" (R v. Quick) or non-insane automatism with is due to external factors (R v. Hennessy).
734875
I found some papers on Sainsbury's, maybe they will help you: http://www.coursework4you.co.uk/sprtcasec108.htm
588557
In Ontario, that is correct since a 1996 Court of Appeal decision (Regina v. Jacob).  I believe that there was a similar ruling in New York in the early 90s.
195382
lexisnexis or westlaw should work, but its $$$. the other option to research is your local law school library. The librarians are generally pretty good.\n\nAs far as I can tell there are no california state cases published by that name. (only cases that go to the state supreme court, and some at the intermediate appeals level are published) There may be federal cases, but I didn't want to take the time.\n\ngood luck
181146
The decision was based on the 14th amendment.  The case was Afroyim vs. Rusk and details can be found at:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
875351
If you have the patience read this:\n\nhttp://www.llmc.com/civil_law_3.htm
364950
I doubt the state could be sued for negligence.  We live in a country that you are innocent till proven guilty.  For the innocent that are charged this is good.  For the innocent no charged the guilty that are free to walk this sucks.
290509
Can you be more specific in what you are looking for?\n\nFor example are you looking for laws that are pertinent only to England?