Scribd
Upload
31 views2 pages

Negligence Case Analysis: Sanfield v Cheung

This document provides 16 questions to help students prepare for a tutorial discussion on the negligence case Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v Li Kai Cheung. The questions probe various aspects of the case facts, procedural history, key issues addressed in the judgment, and application of legal doctrines like res ipsa loquitur. Students are instructed to read the full case, take notes to answer the questions, reference specific passages, and be prepared to discuss their responses in the tutorial.

Uploaded by

winnie0v0
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
31 views2 pages

Negligence Case Analysis: Sanfield v Cheung

This document provides 16 questions to help students prepare for a tutorial discussion on the negligence case Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v Li Kai Cheung. The questions probe various aspects of the case facts, procedural history, key issues addressed in the judgment, and application of legal doctrines like res ipsa loquitur. Students are instructed to read the full case, take notes to answer the questions, reference specific passages, and be prepared to discuss their responses in the tutorial.

Uploaded by

winnie0v0
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Tort tutorial 2

09/12/2015

Read Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v Li Kai Cheung (available in


the Cases section of the course website). Come to the tutorial prepared to
address the following questions. It will be best if you make notes to
prepare for the tutorial. Where possible, make reference to paragraph
numbers and specific passages in the judgment, in preparing your
answers.
1. Briefly explain the facts that gave rise to this negligence action.
Do so in your own words. If there are words used by the court that you
are not familiar with, be sure to look them up and understand them
before you come to tutorial. Draw a sketch of the accident and bring it to
tutorial.
2. Who did the plaintiff sue? As best as you can based on the facts
provided, explain the role of the various defendants in the accident.
3. What was the outcome at trial?
4. Of those found liable, not all were appellants in this appeal. Can
you speculate as to why that might be so?
5. What was the result in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal? Were all
of the judges in the Court of Appeal in agreement?
6. What was the respondent's explanation for the accident? What
was the appellant's explanation?
7. What is a castor? Draw a picture of one, or bring a downloaded
image of one to the tutorial.
8. What conditions did the respondent have to satisfy in order to
rely on res ipsa loquitur? Was he able to satisfy these? What was the
effect of the plea of res ipsa loquitur?
9. What is a latent defect? Why was the issue of latent defect
relevant to the litigation?
10. What was the trial judges finding on latent defect? Was it
sufficiently clear?
11. What was the decision of the CFA? Briefly explain the reasons
for the decision, with reference to passages in the judgment. Prepare a
concise, written summary of the reasons, in less than 200 words, and
bring it to tutorial. Be prepared to share it in the tutorial.
12. Does res ipsa loquitur shift the legal burden of proof?

13. Do you see any problem with Bokhary PJs statement, in para
28, that where there is more than one defendant in control, they are all
liable?
14. How would you characterize Bokhary PJs observations in para
20 regarding occupiers liability and breach of statutory duty, and the
application of res ipsa loquitur to such actions? Are they part of the ratio
decidendi of the case?
15. Can you see any differences, in terms of procedure and
evidence, between a trial case, such as that in Yeung v Lee in tutorial in #
1, and an appeal case, such as Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v Li Kai
Cheung?
16. Looking back to the case of Yeung v Lee in tutorial # 1, do you
think the result would have been the same or different if res ipsa
loquitur had been pleaded by the plaintiff in that case?

You might also like