Talk:Occupiers' liability in English law
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
the last paragraph talks about consent being a defense to negligence. a.f.a.i.k. consent is only a defense to intentional torts. in terms of negligence, it is called assumption of risk.
Common Law Authorities[edit]
I realise there are cases cited in footnotes, though it would be nice to see some discussion of them in the main article. As is often the way in English law, the statues (OLA 1984; 1957) only provide the bones for the torts, the substantial part of them being outlined through Ratio Decidendi. The cases provided only provide a very thin outline which is insufficient for anybody with more than a passing curiosity in the subject, as such I propose the article be expanded to discuss more rules of law, particularly those from statute law, though the article could benefit from a brief discussion on contributory negligence, as well as what one would be required to prove and how they would do so in court.
If there are no objections, I may add material to it within the next week or two when I have access to my study materials. HJ Mitchell (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)