text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill - Clause 3 - Generally Responsible Approach
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  @ MP voted no to require courts to consider if someone was acting responsibly when considering allegations of negligence or breach of statutory duty. 
  @ MP voted aye against requiring courts to consider if someone was acting responsibly when considering allegations of negligence or breach of statutory duty. 
  
  The majority of MPs voted to require courts to consider if someone was demonstrating a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others in cases of alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty. 
  
  MPs were considering the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill[1][2].
  
  The amendment rejected in this vote was:
  
  :Amendment 5, page 1, line 9, leave out Clause 3.
  
  The Bill sought to set out considerations a court must make when considering a claim that a person was negligent or in breach of statutory duty and is determining the steps that the person was required to take to meet a standard of care.
  
  Clause 3, which was supported in this vote, was titled ''Responsibility'' and stated:
  
  :The court must have regard to whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a generally responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.
  
  ==
  
  
  * [1] [http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/socialactionresponsibilityandheroism.html Parliament's webpage on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill 2014-15]
  * [2] [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2014-2015/0009/cbill_2014-20150009_en_2.htm Text of the 
  Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill as at the time of the vote]
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  