Hoyte v Kirpalani Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Trinidad & Tobago |
| Date | 1972 |
| Court | High Court (Trinidad and Tobago) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
4 cases
-
Doyle v Big Banana Holding Company Ltd
...see how this authority applies to this case. 6 The defendant cites the following authorities concerning the negligence issue: Hoyte v. Kirpalani Ltd (1972) 19 W.I.R. 310 , a decision of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago; Indermavr v. Dames [1861-73] All E.R. Reprint 15 London Graving......
-
Smith v Smith (D.B.A. Hair Fantacy Salon)
...would have to be taken into consideration in order to determine whether they presented an unusual danger. In Kirpalani's Ltd. v. Hoyte (1972) 19 WIR 310, the High Court held that the owners of Kirpalani's Supermarket caused the claimant to fall and sustain injuries while shopping at the sup......
-
George v Admiralty Transport Company Ltd
...premises or else show that the plaintiff had accepted the risk with full knowledge of the dangers involved. 28 The Trinidad case of Hoyte v. Kirpalani (1972) 19 W.I.R. 310 applied the Indermaur principle and the decision in Stowell v. Railway Executive [1949] 2 All E.R. 193 that the only du......
-
Samin George Plaintiff v Admiralty Transport Company Ltd Defendant [ECSC]
...else show that the plaintiff had accepted the risk with full knowledge of the dangers involved. 26 The Trinidad case ofHoyte v Kirpalani [1972] 19 WIR 310 applied the Indermaur principle and the decision in Stowell v Railway Executive [1949] 2 All ER 193 that the only duty imposed on the oc......