Editorial Note
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1955.tb00338.x |
| Published date | 01 November 1955 |
| Date | 01 November 1955 |
Nov.
1955
NOTES
OF
CASES
625
hold that a condition to that effect had been attached to the
invitation
;
(c) where the visitor has knowledge
of
the danger, his
knowledge should be taken into account as a circumstance
relevant to the question whether any damage sustained by him
is wholly or partly the result of his own fault.”
So,
at present, Irish law, as laid down in
Maguire’s
case,
diverges from English law, as laid down in
Horton’s
case,
on
this
particular point, to the advantage of the former-as argued
in
the
previous Note. The ratio decidendi of the Irish Supreme Court in
Maguire’s
case should add weight to this particular recommenda-
tion of the Law Reform Committee when the larger question of
occupiers’ liability to visitors comes before Parliament.
F.
E.
DOWRICK.
EDITORIAL NOTE
Re Spensley’s Will Trusts
[1952] 2
All E.R.
49,
noted at Vol.
16,
p.
95,
was reversed by the Court of Appeal:
[1954]
Ch.
233.
Re Delhi Electric Supply and Tractioln
Co.,
Ltd.
[1954]
Ch.
131;
119531 3
W.L.R.
1085,
C.A.,
noted at Vol.
17,
p.
167,
was
affirmed by the House of Lords,
sub
nom. Government
of
India
v.
Taylor
[1955]
A.C.
491.
Morelle
v.
Waterworth
119551
1
Q.B.
1,
C.A., noted at p.
78,
ante,
has been followed and applied by the Court of Appeal in
Morelle
v.
Wakeling
[1955] 2
W.L.R.
672; [1955]
1
All E.R.
708,
and
Att.-Gen.
v.
Parsons
119551 8
W.L.R.
29;
[1955]
2
All E.R.
466.
To continue reading
Request your trial