4 Flashcards
What is a Delict?
A delict is when someone causes harm or damage to another person. The person who caused the harm must pay compensation. It has three parts:
Loss: There must be damage or harm.
Wrongful Act: The action must be something the law sees as wrong.
Causation: The harm must be linked directly to the wrongful act.
What is Negligence?
negligence is a legal concept where someone fails to take reasonable care, resulting in harm or damage to another person.
What are the main elements required to prove negligence?
Duty of Care: The defender owed a duty to the pursuer.
Breach of Duty: The defender failed to meet the required standard of care.
Causation: The breach caused the harm suffered by the pursuer.
Remoteness: The harm was a foreseeable consequence of the breach.
What is the significance of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?
Key Facts:
A woman, Mrs. Donoghue, drank a bottle of ginger beer that her friend bought for her. The drink contained a dead snail, which made her sick.
She sued the manufacturer (Stevenson) because the bottle was sealed and she could not check its contents herself.
Legal Issue:
There was no direct contract between Mrs. Donoghue and the manufacturer, as she did not buy the drink herself.
The question was whether the manufacturer could still be held responsible for her illness.
Court Decision:
The House of Lords ruled that the manufacturer had a duty of care to the end consumer, even without a direct contract.
What are some particular issues regarding duty of care?
- Pure Omissions
Generally, there’s no legal duty to take action or help someone unless:
There’s a close relationship (proximity) between the people involved.
The person who did not act was the one who created the danger in the first place. - Nervous Shock (Mental Harm)
The law recognizes mental harm, but it’s harder to prove. Liability for mental harm applies only if:
The victim has close ties (like family) with the injured person.
The victim witnessed the incident or its immediate aftermath. - Economic Loss
Generally, there is no duty of care to avoid purely financial loss (loss without physical damage), unless:
The loss was caused by a negligent misstatement (bad advice or incorrect information given that was relied on).
What principle was established in Muir v Glasgow Corporation (1943)?
In Muir v Glasgow Corporation (1943), a group of children were injured by hot tea that spilled in a tearoom run by the Glasgow Corporation. The manager of the tearoom had allowed a church group to carry a large urn of tea through the premises, which accidentally spilled. The court ruled that the manager could not have reasonably foreseen that carrying the urn would cause an accident and therefore was not liable for the injuries.
The ruling clarified that the standard of care depends on what a reasonable person would anticipate as a likely risk, not on hindsight after the accident happened.
How do we decide if there was a breach of duty?
The standard of care is what a reasonable person would do in the same situation. Factors include:
Chance of Harm: The higher the risk, the more care is needed (Example: Bolton v Stone).
Seriousness of Harm: If the potential harm is severe, the duty of care increases (Example: Paris v Stepney Borough Council).
Case Summaries for Standard of Care
Bolton v Stone (1951)
and
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
Bolton v Stone (1951)
In this case, a woman was hit by a cricket ball while standing on a road near a cricket ground. The ball had only escaped the grounds a few times in many years, showing that the risk of it happening was extremely low. The court ruled that the cricket club was not negligent because the chance of harm was minimal, and they had taken reasonable precautions (e.g., installing a high fence). This case established that the standard of care depends on the likelihood of harm. If the risk is very low, extensive precautions may not be required.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)
In this case, a mechanic (Paris) with only one good eye was not provided with safety goggles by his employer and lost his sight in an accident. The court ruled that the employer had a higher duty of care because the potential harm was more serious for someone with only one functional eye. This case highlighted that if the possible harm is severe, even if the risk is small, the duty of care increases, and greater precautions are expected.
What principle did Hunter v Hanley (1955) establish regarding professional negligence?
What Happened:
A patient (Hunter) sued her doctor (Hanley) after a needle broke during a medical procedure, causing her injury.
The patient argued that the doctor was negligent because he used a different needle type than what other doctors normally use.
Key Issue:
Was the doctor careless by not following the usual medical practices?
Court’s Decision:
The court decided in favor of the doctor but set out a test for proving professional negligence. To show a professional was negligent, you need to prove three things:
Standard Practice: There is a typical method or practice followed by professionals in that field.
Deviation: The professional did not follow this usual method.
Unreasonable Action: No reasonable professional would have done what the doctor did in this situation.
What is Causation?
Causation is a legal concept that connects a wrongful act to the harm suffered by the claimant. In other words, it examines whether the defendant’s actions directly caused the loss or damage experienced by the claimant.
Causation ensures that only those responsible for the harm are held liable. It prevents unfair claims where the damage was caused by other factors unrelated to the defendant’s actions.
Morris v Murray [1991] summary
(the defence of volenti non fit injuria (consent to the risk).
The case of Morris v Murray is a well-known example in tort law involving the defence of volenti non fit injuria (consent to the risk).
Facts:
The claimant (Morris) and the defendant (Murray) were friends who had been drinking heavily together throughout the day.
Murray decided to pilot his light aircraft, and Morris agreed to accompany him as a passenger, despite knowing that both of them were intoxicated.
Shortly after takeoff, the plane crashed, killing Murray and seriously injuring Morris.
Morris sued the estate of Murray for damages, arguing that the crash was due to Murray’s negligent piloting.
Issue:
Whether Morris had consented to the risk of injury by agreeing to fly with a clearly intoxicated pilot.
Decision:
The court dismissed Morris’s claim, ruling that he had voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by getting into the aircraft knowing Murray was drunk.
The defence of volenti non fit injuria was successfully applied.
Legal Principle:
The case established that a person who knowingly and willingly undertakes a risk cannot later sue for injuries resulting from that risk.
The key element is informed consent—Morris was aware of the danger and still chose to proceed.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
“Res Ipsa Loquitur” is a Latin term meaning “the thing speaks for itself.”
It is used in legal cases to imply that the very occurrence of an accident suggests negligence, even without direct evidence.
This rule applies when an accident happens that normally wouldn’t occur unless someone was careless.
Example Case: Scott v London and St Catherine Docks Co (1865)
Summary:
What Happened: Mr. Scott was injured when several heavy bags of sugar fell on him while he was at the docks.
The Problem: There was no direct evidence showing who caused the bags to fall or how it happened.
Court’s Decision: The court ruled that the accident itself was enough proof of negligence because bags of sugar do not usually fall unless someone was careless.
Why It Matters: The case established the use of Res Ipsa Loquitur, allowing the injured person to claim compensation without needing to prove exactly how the negligence happened. The burden shifts to the defendant (dock company) to show they were not negligent.
Key Takeaway:
Res Ipsa Loquitur helps in cases where direct evidence is missing but the accident itself clearly points to someone’s negligence.
What’s the difference between factual and legal causation?
Factual Causation: Uses the “but for” test — would the harm have happened if not for the defendant’s actions? (Example: Barnett v Chelsea Hospital).
Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969)
Summary: A man went to the hospital after drinking tea contaminated with arsenic. The hospital didn’t treat him right away, and he died.
Outcome: The court found that even with immediate treatment, the man would have died. So, the hospital was not factually responsible because the harm (death) would have happened anyway.
