Simple HOW TOs on 5 Paragraph Essay on Leadership

â€Å"Leadership† is one of the most frequently assigned topics of business classes and various scholarship programs. The goal of writing a 5 paragraph essay on leadership  may be to reveal an individual philosophy or to examine personal leadership style. If you happen to be a student with this sort of assignment, you may start your project with defining a thesis, citing different theories, and making use of related illustrations from your past life experiences in order to compose conclusions. Think about the thesis, which is a statement that includes a claim on a particular aspect of leadership, or that provides a detailed comparison between two opposing theories. Proceed to the introductive section. This paragraph involves, firstly, a general statement that informs readers about the essay topic, such as, â€Å"Strong leadership may be the key factor in professional success or it can cause a failure of a business enterprise†. Next step is to build up overall argumentation on the basis of the thesis statement you have made before. Use the last introduction section to attract your audience’s attention and set up the opening paragraph of the essay body. Cite theories in order to support your thesis statement. For instance, you can compare and contrast the main styles suggested by situationalists (democratic, authoritarian, laissez-faire). One more option is to investigate the four styles of the famous path-goal model (directive, supportive, achievement-oriented and participative), defining the most suitable style for each situation. Recall the old days to be able to share your personal experience. The number one goal of a 5 paragraph essay about leadership is both to prove you’re armed with solid theoretical knowledge and to complement your knowledge with real-life situations. Feel free to search for examples in church organizations, government or business world. Make sure to explain in what way your experience supports your theories and do not forget to describe your leadership style. Standard structure of a 5 paragraph project requires you to provide three paragraphs in the body of your essay. Your task is to fill each of them with juicy content providing logical links between the paragraphs. When the time to write a conclusive section finally comes, make sure to restate your thesis statement using different words. Briefly sum up your key points and provide a clear suggestion on how your research may be noteworthy for understanding more important issues (in economic theory or world business trends, for instance) that go far beyond the scope of the project you have completed. If you want, you may turn your essay into a kind of call for action for somebody who happens to be interested in the topic of your assignment.

Sinner vs. the Sin in Dantes Divine Comedy Essay

Sinner vs. the Sin in the Divine Comedy Often when we set out to journey in ourselves, we come to places that surprise us with their strangeness. Expecting to see what is straightforward and acceptable, we suddenly run across the exceptions. Just as we as self†¹examiners might encounter our inner demons, so does Dante the writer as he sets out to walk through his Inferno. Dante explains his universe - in terms physical, political, and spiritual - in the Divine Comedy. He also gives his readers a glimpse into his own perception of what constitutes sin. By portraying characters in specific ways, Dante the writer can shape what Dante the pilgrim feels about each sinner. Also, the reader can look deeper in the text and examine the†¦show more content†¦By his noble speech the reader learns that political corruption can damn a mans soul. The punished sinners who suffered death for political reasons are of paramount importance to Dante. Accordingly, he shows in the suicides circle of hell the extreme con sequences of failure in political life. Pier committed suicide for the shame of losing his favored position as Fredericks counselor. This illustrates the ancient Roman concept of honorable suicide, which protests any unjust action that robs one of reputation. Lines 58†¹61 establish delle Vignes high ranking position as faithful advisor to Frederick: I am he who held both keys to Fredericks heart, locking, unlocking with so deft a touch that scarce another soul had any part in his most secret thoughts... Dante shows delle Vigne to be a faithful man, that gave up both sleep and life to prove his dedication (l. 63). The force that ousted him was Envy, embodied in the men who were anxious to have his place. When Dante writes of envy, who on Caesars face/ keeps fixed forever her adulterous stare he is using the concept of Caesar to show the political manifestation of the vice. The noble speech given by Pier delle Vigne begins strained, as he speaks of his fall from grace in life. By line 72, the courtly style is finished and he can speak from the heart. He swears by the new roots of this tree that never was he once unfaithful to his lord and emperorShow MoreRelatedDantes Inferno vs. Miltons Paradise Lost901 Words   |  4 PagesDante s Inferno Vs. Milton s Paradise Lost The two stories, Inferno by Dante and Paradise Lost by Milton, were written about the biblical hell and its keeper: Satan. Both of these authors had different views about the hell and Satan. In Paradis Lost, Milton wrote that Satan used to be an angel of God. The devil believed that he was equal to the Lord and he wanted to be greater than him. For this, God banished him to hell. Milton s physical description of Satan is interesting. Since he

Abiotic And Biotic Characteristics Environmental Sciences Essay Free Essays

San Francisco Bay has maintained a brilliant organic structure of H2O and usage to prolong the economic system of Western United States and San Francisco Estuary in Bay in is of great importance because through this a big figure of H2O run outing becomes possible. It ‘s Estuary from where fresh H2O meets to sea H2O. There are many pollutants that we face in our day-to-day life e. We will write a custom essay sample on Abiotic And Biotic Characteristics Environmental Sciences Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now g. soil, deposits, oil, lubricating oil, fertilizes pesticides chemicals etc. the H2O running from the land transporting these pollutants to underground and finally this range to the Estuary of san Francisco. These pollutants when range in river and sea H2O can foul the whole H2O and turn out harmful for aquatic life as it can be cause injury for wetland animals like fish, and can turn out really unsafe for other home grounds of H2O. It can destruct the aquatic system and can be major menaces for the life being populating under H2O. As San Francisco Estuary considered as a really of import part and has much economic importance so for bar of pollution and maintain safe this part from other different factors Restoration and preservation is used. Abiotic and biotic features of the San Francisco Estuary Many of environmental factors affect the abiotic and biotic features of the San Francisco Estuary these include both abiotic and biotic features. These factors effects the life in Estuary in great extends. Inanimate factors are called abiotic factors which include concentration of O and foods, salt of H2O and sum of sunlight. As these factors have the major impact on the life in estuary. All life factors that affect the estuary are called biotic factors. That includes manufacturers ‘ consumers and marauders as manufacturers are of basic importance for consumers. Consumers rely on manufacturers and marauders rely on consumers. So these are depend on one another to keep the balance of estuary, Population growing in the San Francisco Bay country affected the estuary Increasing tendency of population in San Francisco Bay country affected the estuary as increasing tendency of population cause a haste in urban every bit good as on small town countries. More the people are utilizing the resorts more the waste is making and much usage of H2O and H2O waste from its usage create pollution as much of the contaminated H2O is drained through the belowground ways to Estuary that is a great menace for the marine life. More over in recent old ages 40,000 metric dozenss of pollutants enter the Bay yearly from agribusiness and urban overflow. Rivers, atmospheric radioactive dust, municipal sewerage intervention workss, industrial installations, natural and unreal eroding, illegal clearance, dredging and dredged stuff disposal, marine vas discharges, inadvertent spills, and landfill ooze are besides doing jobs every bit good. ( 1 ) Habitat break in the San Francisco Estuary been increased by human behaviour Estuaries is of great importance for us as these are used for nutrient, trade and for shelter and in this instance Sans Francisco Bay has great importance as it is used as seaport for many ships of this parts. There are big figure of workss and animate beings found in Estuaries and the most of population of San Francisco Bay depend on these marine lives for their nutrient. But due to the pollution spreading by addition in population cause injury to these workss and animate beings. This pollution can do harm to the lives of these workss and animate beings found in estuaries. Heavy burden of silt, rubbish, and deposits by eroding and chemical taint cause can turn out to be harmful for these workss and animate beings and can make asphyxiation for them. Due to increase in irrigation or by doing more dikes by the people can do jobs as more the salty H2O will travel upriver as comparison to normal everyday that can do destructive effect for species populating in the H2O. The most of import impact of human population in estuaries habitat in San Francisco is the development of estuaries. Peoples are seeking to acquire spread out the country of estuaries for development intent as they are rather interested to utilize the land for lodging and concern intent as they want to desire to use the part of estuaries for industrial development. Economically estuaries are really good for these intents but this can caused the doomed of big figure of home ground found in these estuaries. So it is harmful for the H2O species and go the cause of Habitat break in the San Francisco Estuary. Aquatic Nuisance Species ( ANS ) is transporting the being across America and around the Earth. This phenomena is increasing that cause injury to native fish and wild life in different ways as it disturb the full nutrient web and cause jobs for human life activity every bit good e.g. interrupting the H2O bringing and set uping the agribusiness every bit good. Conservation being used to advance and keep the biodiversity of workss and animate beings in the San Francisco Estuary Biodiversity of workss and animate beings means scope of organisms including different workss and animate beings, present in ecological system. It is really of import to advance and keep the biodiversity of workss and animate beings to acquire the broad assortment of being that will be good and usage to carry through human demands. San Francisco Estuary is of great importance for the home ground of this part as they get of import benefits from them so to salvage this and to last from the loss of species found in these estuaries it is really of import to properly mange and develop the system to get away from the loss of marine species as good. Estuary of San Francisco Bay is of great importance in all over the universe. To procure it from un exceeding phenomena and widen the productive usage of it The San Francisco Estuary Partnership ( SFEP ) is playing really of import function as they have used different attacks to cut down the impact of Aquatic Nuisance Species ( ANS ) . They have start to see species direction program I order to retrieve the species of Estuary from harmful effects. Fish in the estuary demand O to last so the estuary where there is increased pollution that ‘s doing lost of marine life, Submerged aquatic flora ( SAV ) produces O for fish external respiration and to cut down the pollution. The Sans Francisco Bay preservation and development committee ( 2 ) prepared a program to do and implement the policies for the development of Bay and to use the maximal benefits from them. The Sans Francisco Bay program is created and implemented by this committee in 1968. The of import conversation of this program was related to shore line and coastal countries to use it to their maximal potency. Conservation of fish and other aquatic being is most significantly depend on the O that is provided to these beings, fresh H2O, handiness of nutrient for these beings, sufficient country of genteelness and quality of H2O. If these factors are organized in proper manner so it became possible to keep and better the biodiversity of workss and animate beings of Sans Francisco estuary. The Sans Francisco Bay preservation and development committee has taken of import stairss to reconstruct these constituents in order to guarantee the benefits for the future coevals of these fish, and other wild life of estuary. This committee besides provides recommendations in Bayland Ecosystem habitat Goal Report about the diverseness of home ground O heighten the assortment of aquatic workss and carnal species. The Baylands Ecosystem habitat Goal Report works to supply the of import information about the types, sum, and distribution of wetlands and its home grounds that are needed to keep a healthy eco system. Decision San Francisco Estuary is of great importance as this is a passage zone between watershed and ocean and economically this system has great importance for that part that ‘s the ground of Restoration of this estuary. Many action programs has made for the development, publicity and care of these Estuary and many more action programs are expected in close hereafter for farther development of this ecosystem. How to cite Abiotic And Biotic Characteristics Environmental Sciences Essay, Essay examples

Establishing Breach of Duty of Care-Free-Samples for Students

Question: Critically analyse the criteria used by the courts in determining whether there has been a breach of a duty of care under the law of tort. The file assessment task explains all the details pertaining the assignment.Recommended reading Occupiers Liability Act 1984 ,Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and file Topic over view II Breach of Duty. Answer: Introduction Tort can be best described as a civil wrong done, which causes harm, loss or injury to another person, as a result of the acts which the first person undertakes. There are different types of torts, but the most commonly discussed tort is the tort of negligence[1]. Negligence, being a tort, takes place in such cases where the acts or the actions of one person, say person X, results in another person, say person Y, getting injured. This injury could be harm or loss too, which caused to person Y. Further, this injury takes place due to the person X not undertaking such act in a careful manner, which a reasonable person in their place would have undertaken[2]. Furthermore, there is a need for the person Y to be harmed, at loss, or injured in such a manner, which was substantial and resulted directly due to such acts undertaken by person X. Where this does not happen, a case of negligence would not be upheld, due to lack of direct causation, and remoteness. Apart from this, there are vari ous other requirements which can make a claim of negligence unsuccessful[3]. When the steps required for making a case of negligence are taken into consideration, the very step comes out to be the presence of duty of care. It is crucial for a case to progress under negligence to show that the duty of care was owed by person X to person Y. Without this, a case of negligence cannot move forward, and is a substantial aspect. Even more important is to show that this duty of care had been breached[4]. This discussion is focused on critically analyzing the criteria which the courts make use of, where they have to determine the breach of duty of care, under the common law and the statutory law. Breach of Duty of Care As has been touched upon in the introductory segment, there are certain requirements for establishing a case of negligence in a successful manner. This involves showing the duty of care, its breach, resulting loss/ harm/ injury, causation, proximity, remoteness and reasonable foreseeability[5]. Each of these elements is analyzed on different criteria. The following parts would highlight the criteria used by courts, specifically in context of breach of duty of care under the common law, under the Occupiers Liability Act, 1957[6], and under the Occupiers Liability Act, 1984[7]. Common Law The tort of negligence is predominately decided under the common law. The decisions of the courts and the criteria set out in the precedents are made use of by the courts in deciding different elements highlighted above, which includes the breach of duty of care. The term breach of duty of care, as the name suggests, is the contravention of duty of care which person X owed to person Y, as a result of the acts being undertaken by them, having the possibility of resulting in a harm/ injury/ loss to person Y[8]. This breach takes place when the required standard of care is not deployed by person X while performing their actions. Further, a prudent person in place of person X would have undertaken such care when they would have undertaken such acts. This lack of taking the reasonable standard of care results in duty of care being violated. A key point in this context is to show that there was a clear and reasonable possibility of such harm/ injury/ loss taking place in terms of reasonabl e foreseeability of the loss[9]. To better shed light on the different criteria which the courts make use of there is a need to quote certain landmark or noteworthy cases. In order to establish that the duty of care had been breached, there is a need to apply the objectivity test. This is a common test used by the courts. The objective test provides that a certain level of expectation was there from person X which they have failed in meeting and which was as per the standards of a reasonable person. In Vaughan v Menlove[10], as a result of the poor ventilation, the haystack of the defendant caught fire. He had been warned regarding the possibility of such happening if he left the haystack and that too, a number of times. Using his best judgment, he argued that there was no foreseeable risk of fire. When the matter reached court, they held that the best judgment of the defendant had not been sufficient and that there was a need to apply the standards which a reasonable man would deploy. However, this test is not used strictly and is often varied depending on the particular situation of the case or based on the defendant of the case. For instance, in Condon v Basi[11], the court adopted the view that an amateur footballer was not expected to meet the standards of such footballers who were in the first division. In Blake v Galloway[12], the context of horseplay was at the centre of this case. Here, the judges held that a duty of care was only breached where the conduct of defendant amounted to high degree of careless or recklessness. When it comes to the professionals, the breach of duty of care becomes a bit stricter in approach by the courts. Basically there is an enhanced standard of duty of care on the professionals. The case of Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority[13] saw the court stating that the standards of reasonable person applied to the professionals of that profession, even when such an individual was a trainee. In this case, the junior doctor was said to have the same standard of care as any qualified doctor. Again, in Nettleship v Weston[14], a breach of duty of care was found to be present where a learner driver failed in meeting the same standards as any reasonably competent qualified driver owes. There are certain cases where the opinion is divided in a profession, in context of the proper course of action which has to be undertaken in specific situations. When such a case takes place, Bolam v Friern[15] dictates that the defendant is not required to be treated in violation of the duty of care by choosing one body of opinion over the other. This case is famous for providing the Bolam Test. In this case, the doctor was not held to have breached his duty of care where he adopted the practices of reasonable body of medical men, which were skilled in their specific art. Where a man is held negligent just due to presence of contrary body of opinions, it would be unjust and unfair. To further clarify on this matter, there is a need to make reference to Bolitho v City Hackney Health Authority[16], where it was provided that the opinion had to be defensible and was required to be rooted in logic. This shows that the courts analyze the details of each case and adopt a holistic approa ch before giving any decision. Even a change in a needle could result in variations in judgment. The theme which is adopted by the courts is to uphold justice and to be fair to every party. This is the reason a lot of details are covered under the common law in context of upholding the breach of duty of care. In context of reasonable standards, the courts have not only clarified on normal cases and professional cases, but have also explained the difference in cases of children. For instance, in Mullin v Richards[17], the courts clearly provided that a child was not required or even expected to meet the standards which apply on a reasonable adult. The child, thus, had to be judged on the basis of the standards of a reasonable child, that too, of the very same age. There is again a variation adopted by the courts when it comes to the conduct of defendant which is affected by illness in upholding breach of duty of care. This is due to proper reasoning and again complies with the theme of dealing each case separately to uphold a sense of justice. For instance, in Roberts v Ramsbottom[18], the breach of duty of care was upheld just to make certain that the aggrieved party had been properly compensated. As against this, in Mansfield v Weetabix[19], the breach of duty of care was not upheld due to this case involving property damage, which could easily be covered through insurance. In the application of objective test for upholding breach of duty of care, there is a need to consider certain factors. The very first factor is the likelihood of harm. In Roe v Minister of Health[20], the courts held that the defendant was not expected to guard against such events which could not be foreseen. Bolton v Stone[21] is a leading matter in this context, which shows that a duty of care was not present towards Miss Stone due to the very low likelihood of harm and the defendant having taken all the requisite practical precautions in the situation which was present. Reasonability can be clarified through Haley v London Electricity Board[22] where the beach of duty of care was upheld as it was deemed as foreseeable that a blind person walking down the street would trip on a shovel kept at street where there was no appropriate protection. In case of a non-blind person, the decision would have been the reverse. The next requirement, as had been stated in introductory segment, is to show that the harm sustained has to be serious enough. In Paris v Stepney[23], it was upheld that a duty of care had been breached by not providing the requisite safety gear to Paris, where this resulted in Paris getting blind in the only good eye he had. Again, the mixing of criteria can be highlighted through The Wagon Mound No.2[24] where even with the low likelihood of harm, the breach of duty of care was upheld as a result of seriousness of harm being high. Latimer v AEC[25] puts down the requirement of cost of prevention, where a breach was denied due to reasonable precautions being taken by the defendant, cancelling out the need of shutting down the factor. Lastly, there is a need to analyze the utility of conduct of the defendant. In Watt v Hertfordshire[26], a breach of duty of care was not upheld where there was an emergency situation and the utility of conduct of defendant in life saving situation was seen to outweigh the need of taking requisite precautions. In case of lack of such life saving situation, the decision would have been just opposite. Occupiers Liability Act, 1957 This legislation is focused on imposing a common duty of care which the occupiers owe to the lawful visitors. The 1957 act covers the protected damages like death, damage to property and personal injury. As per this legislation, the invitees and the licensees are the lawful visitors and to these people only the common duty of care is owed[27]. The 1957 legislation also owes this duty to the ones who enter based on a contract[28], or those to whom the right of entering has been exercised based on the right having being provided through any law[29]. Under section 2(2) of this act, the common duty of care has been provided, which requires care to be taken at all cases where it has to be ensured that the reasonable care is taken when a visitor visits or enters the premises for the permissible purposes[30]. Again, as is found under the common law, this legislation also provides that the standard of care would vary in cases of children[31], or in cases where the occupier expects that their exercising this call would be appreciated and is guarded against the special risks which are ordinarily incident to it[32]. In case of child visitors, the court takes into account the childs age and the level of understanding which a child of that age is expected to have. In Titchener v British Railways Board[33], a breach of duty of care was not upheld, as the age of child was 15 years, where it was expected for them to be reasonable aware of the dangers of trespassing. As against this, there was a breach of duty of care upheld by the court in Jolley v Sutton[34] where the children were 14 years of age, and by not taking away an unsafe boat, there was a risk of children meddling with it, resulting in duty being breached. The breach of duty of care particularly in context of 1957 act could be explained through Taylor v Glasgow Corporation[35]. In this case, the two children went to a park which was open for public and were thus invited. A boy who was seven years old ate some berries, which were poisonous and died. There was lack of warning signs and the shrub was not fenced. This was seen as a breach of duty of care as it was seen that children would have reached for the berry as it was unprotected and the children were not warned. This was coupled with the protection that the defendant failed in providing the requisite protection to their occupiers. The court does not put the entire liability on the defendants in cases of children, and the role of parents is also analyzed. In Phipps v Rochester Corporation[36], the breach of duty of care was not upheld as the court upheld that the parents of five year and seven year old kids were required to accompany them. Often the warning signs or warnings are deemed as enough to discharge duty of care as was seen in Roles v Nathan[37]. However, in White v Blackmore[38], in context of section 2(4)(a) of the 1957 act[39], it was held that warning had to cover the danger which took place in the pertinent case. In Darby v National Trust[40], it was clarified that there is no need of warning the claimants regarding the obvious risk of harm. Occupiers Liability Act, 1984 The visitors which are not covered under the 1957 act can claim a duty of care being present under the 1984 act. In Revill v Newbery[41], it was clarified that this act gives protection even to the ones who break into the premises of an occupier with criminal intentions. Even though this can be seen as a harsh concept, it is used vigilantly by the courts and in majority with cases involving children as they are not aware of the dangers of trespassing. In Addie v Dumbreck[42], the duty was said to be not owed by the defendant. However, a divergent approach was adopted in British Railways Board v Herrington[43] by the judges in sense of justice. In this case, the court upheld the presence of duty of care on grounds of common humanity to trespassers, and the breach of this owed duty of care resulted in the defendant being made liable for the burns caused to the six year old boy. Section 1(3) of the 1984 act provides the situations which can give rise to a duty of care being owed by an occupier to the visitor[44]. This includes the awareness of danger on reasonable grounds; the grounds to believe that danger may be caused and that other person could come in vicinity of such danger; and that in case of such risk, there is a need to provide certain protection. The criteria laid down under this section has to be shown to be present when the duty of care is alleged to have been contravened as was stipulated through Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd[45]. As is the case with common law, there is a need to deploy a standard of care as per section 1(4) of the 1984 act[46]. As is the case with the 1957 act, by the duty of care can be discharged by giving warnings or by discouraging the others from undertaking such risks as per section 1(5) of the 1984 act[47] and as had been seen under the case of Tomlinson v Congleton[48]. Conclusion Thus, on the basis of the discussion which had been covered in the previous segments, it can be concluded that the courts deploy a range of different factors in order to uphold that the duty of care which person X owed to person Y had been breached or not. The range of case laws discussed herewith highlighted that even a slight variation in two cases can result in huge variations, in terms of breach of duty of care being upheld or the same being denied. There are a number of common factors under the three distinctive laws discussed above, in considering the breach of duty of care. These include the need for upholding the presence of duty of care, followed by factors like significant damages, possibility of the risk of harm actually taking place, the reasonableness of acts undertaken by person in comparison to a prudent person, and the particular factors of the case, in terms of breach of duty of care accompanied by property damage or personal damage, the cases of children and the cas es of professionals, amongst the various other factors. There is a common theme of upholding sense of justice and fairness, and to consider each case in detail, in order to bring out the best result, particularly for the injured party. However, in doing so, the courts adopt a calculated approach, which even though can be cited as contradictory, but is actually based on reasonable grounds. All in all, this discussion presented a thorough analysis of the criteria adopted by courts in determining the breach of duty of care under tort law of negligence in a critical manner. Bibliography Primary SourcesCases Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 Blake v Galloway [2004] 3 All ER 315 Bolam v Friern [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583, 587 Bolitho v City Hackney Health Authority[1997] 3 WLR 1151 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 Darby v National Trust (2001) 3 LGLR 29 Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 231 Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 Jolley v Sutton [2000] 1 WLR 1082 Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Mansfield v Weetabix[1997] EWCA Civ 1352 Mullin v Richards[1998] 1 WLR 1304 Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370 Paris v Stepney [1951] AC 367 Phipps v Rochester Corporation[1955] 1 QB 450 Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239 Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823 Roe v Minister of Health[1954] 2 WLR 915 Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117 Taylor v Glasgow Corporation[1922] 1 AC 448 The Wagon Mound No.2 [1967] 1 AC 617 Titchener v British Railways Board [1983] 1 WLR 1427 Tomlinson v Congleton [2003] 3 WLR 705 Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467 Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835 White v Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296 Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074 Occupiers Liability Act, 1957 Occupiers Liability Act, 1984 Abbott K, Pendlebury N, and Wardman K, Business law (8th edn, Thompson Learning 2007) Gibson A, and Fraser D, Business Law (Pearson Higher Education AU 2013) Greene B, Course Notes: Tort Law (Routledge 2013) Lunney M, and Oliphant K, Tort Law: Text and Materials (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2013) Plunkett J, The Duty of Care in Negligence (Hart Publishing 2018) Steele J, Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2014) Turner C, Unlocking Torts (3rd edn, Routledge 2013) Mark Lunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort Law: Text and Materials (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2013) Jenny Steele, Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2014) Keith Abbott, Norman Pendlebury and Kevin Wardman, Business law (8th edn, Thompson Learning 2007) Chris Turner, Unlocking Torts (3rd edn, Routledge 2013) Andy Gibson and Douglas Fraser, Business Law (Pearson Higher Education AU 2013) Occupiers Liability Act, 1957 Occupiers Liability Act, 1984 James Plunkett, The Duty of Care in Negligence (Hart Publishing 2018) Brendan Greene, Course Notes: Tort Law (Routledge 2013) Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 3 Bing NC 467 [Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 [Blake v Galloway [2004] 3 All ER 315 Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074 Nettleship v Weston [1971] 3 WLR 370 Bolam v Friern [1957] 1 W.L.R. 583, 587 Bolitho v City Hackney Health Authority[1997] 3 WLR 1151 Mullin v Richards[1998] 1 WLR 1304 Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823 Mansfield v Weetabix[1997] EWCA Civ 1352 Roe v Minister of Health[1954] 2 WLR 915 Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 Paris v Stepney [1951] AC 367 The Wagon Mound No.2 [1967] 1 AC 617 Latimer v AEC [1953] AC 643 Watt v Hertfordshire [1954] 1 WLR 835 Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s5(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s2(6) Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s2(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s2(3)(a) Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s2(3)(b) Titchener v British Railways Board [1983] 1 WLR 1427 Jolley v Sutton [2000] 1 WLR 1082 Taylor v Glasgow Corporation[1922] 1 AC 448 Phipps v Rochester Corporation[1955] 1 QB 450 Roles v Nathan [1963] 1 WLR 1117 White v Blackmore [1972] 3 WLR 296 Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s2(4)(a) Darby v National Trust (2001) 3 LGLR 29 Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239 Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358 British Railways Board v Herrington [1972] AC 877 Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s1(3) Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 231 Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s1(4) Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s1(5) Tomlinson v Congleton [2003] 3 WLR 705