3. Bourhill v Young

Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
The claimant was a pregnant fishwife. She got off a tram and as she reached to get her basket off the tram, the defendant drove his motorcycle past the tram at excessive speed and collided with a car 50 feet away from where the claimant was standing. The defendant was killed by the impact. The claimant heard the collision but did not see it. A short time later, the claimant walked past where the incident occurred. The body had been removed but there was a lot of blood on the road. The claimant went into shock and her baby was stillborn. She brought a negligence claim against the defendant's estate.
Held:
No duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant. There was not sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendant when the incident occurred. Download a full set of note on this topic from our website. thelawbank.co.uk/shop/ols/pro...

[@R.R.R.712]

What the hell. I think that is messed up the lady trying to get the estate of a dead person when she was the one who went out and saw the blood (no fault to the dead motorcycle person!), unfortunate as it may be.
Thanks for the summary!

[@londonrider3219]

Thank you

[@ashnavloggers]

Who came hre after studying a case study in ACCA law paper 🌝

[@porschemmalebna1921]

❤️