Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

NEBOSH DIPLOMA UNIT A > A10 CIVIL LAW > Flashcards

A10 CIVIL LAW Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
WSET® Level 4 Wine flashcards
1
Q

10.1 COMMON LAW DUTIES

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

10.1 PRINCIPLES OF TORT
-DUTY OF CARE OWED
-BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE
CASUAL LINK BETWEEN THE BREACH AND THE LOSS SUFFERED
-FORESEEABILITY OF THE TYPE OF DAMAGE

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

10.1 MAIN DEFENCES TO CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENCE

A 
DENAIL
NO DUTY OWED
NO BREACHOF DUTY (WITH REF TO FORESEEABILITY, REAONSABLNESS)
BREACH DID NOT LEAD TO DAMAGE
TYPE OF DAMAGE NOT FORESEEABLE
VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

10.1 CONCEPT OF DUTY OF CARE

A

-TO WHOM A DUTY IS OWED (THE NEIGHBOUR TEST)
-THE DUTY OF CARE OWED BY
DESIGNERS, MANUFACTURERES AND SUPPLIERS TO CUSTOMERS/USERS
OCCUPIERS OF PREMISES TO THOSE USING OR VISITING THE PREMISES
- CONTRACOTS TO CLIENTS AND VICE VERSO
EXTEN OF DUTY (REASONABLENESS, FORESEEABILITY)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

10.1 COMMON LAW DUTIES OWED BY EMPLOYERS TO EMPLYEES TO PROVIDE
-A SAFE PLACE OF WORK AND SAFE ACCESS AND EGRESS
-SAFE SYSTEMS OF WORK
SAFE PLANT, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS
- INSTRUCTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
-COMPETENT FELLOW EMPLOYEES

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

10.1 DAMAGE FOR WHICH THE TORTFEASOR IS LIABLE AND RELEVANCE OF DAMAGE FOR FORESEEABLE TYPE, DATE AND KNOWELDGE OF RISK

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

10.1 GREATER DUTY OF CARE TO MORE VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

10.1 CONCEPT OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

10.2 BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY, DEFENCES AND DAMAGE

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

10.2 PRINCIPLE THAT A BREACH OF A STATUTORY DUTY MAY GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY. CRITERIA FOR A SUCCESSFUL ACTION

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

10.2 THE MAIN DEFENCES TO THE TORT (DELICT) OF BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY

A
  • STATUTE-BARRED (RELEVANCE OF SETION 47 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ACT 1974 AND REFERENCE TO THE EXCLUSION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK REGULATIONS 1999 AND THE CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT) REGULATIONS 2007
  • DUTY NOT ON THE DEFENDANT
  • NO BREACH OF DUTY
  • INJURED PARTY NOT WITHIN THE CLASS OF PERSONS PROTECTED BY THE STATUTE
  • HARM NOT OF THE TYPE THAT THE STATURE WAS DESIGNED TO PREVENT
  • NO CASUAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BREACH AND THE LOSS SUFFERED.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

10.2 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES; GENERAL AND SPECIAL

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

10.2 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ITS EFFECTS

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q
  1. 2 THE CONCEPT OF JOINT TORTFEASORTS:
    - MEANING OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITIES
    - RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FROM JOINT TORTFEASOR
A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

10.2 PERSONAL INJURY ACTION PROTOCOL UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURES RULES

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

10.3 OCCUPIERS LIABILITY

THE MAIN PROVISION OF THE OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACTS 1957 AND 1984 OR THE OCCUPIERS LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) ACT 1960

A

1

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Bradford v Robinson Rentals 1967

A

Safe plant, appliances and premises - Employers duty to provide necessary equipment
Frostbite through driving unheated van.
An engineer was sent out in a van (20 hours) without a heater when very cold weather was expected and people were told not to go out if avoidable; he got frostbite.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Caparo v Dickman 1990

A

Establishing Duty of care
(i) Foreseeability of the damage – would a reasonable person have foreseen damage in the circumstances. (ii) neighbour relationship. (iii) it must be fail, just and reasonable to impose such a duty . All about share values

Held that as a small shareholder, Caparo was entitled to rely on the accounts. Had Caparo been a simple outside investor, with no stake in the company, it would have had no claim. But because the auditors’ work is primarily intended to be for the benefit of the shareholders, and Caparo did in fact have a small stake when it saw the company accounts, its claim was good. This was overturned by the House of Lords, which unanimously held there was no duty of care. Caparo found that Fidelity’s accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dickman for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate.

Caparo v Dickman 1990 - 3 stage test

•Proximity
•Reasonable Foreseeability
•Is it fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty?
Example, Hillsborough Disaster in 1989.

19
Q

Corn v Weirs Glass 1960

A

Damage/injury or Loss must be a consequence of breach
The fall was not consequential to the lack of hand rail since he could not have held it if it were there.
carried pane of glass down steps; breach did not cause injury.
successful claim of tort of breach of statutory duty requires loss to be a consequence of the breach

Glazier carrying sheet of glass with both handles fell on a stairway and was injured
• He sued for breach of statutory duty because no handrail was provided
• He needed both hands to carry glass so handrail would not have been any use
• Claim failed The breach of statutory duty did not cause the injury
Prove Breach of Statutory Duty requires:-
• Statute broken
• Breach caused injury
• Claimed was class of person the statute was intended to protect
• The type of injury was one the statute was intended to protect
Although there had been a breach which meant missing handrails, C failed to show injury was because of breach. Difference between hand rail and guard rails.

20
Q

Davie v New Merton Board Mills 1958

A

Safe plant, appliances and premises
Employer not liable where injury results from latent defect in tools or equipment.
Led to introduction of employers liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 Section 1(1) employer liable if an employee suffers personal injury in the course of his employment in consequence of a defect in equipment provided by the employer.

21
Q

Donaldson v Hays Distribution Services

A

Class of Person – Duty of care
Ms Donaldson was crushed between a reversing lorry and loading bay while looking for a goods collection point.
Reg 17 – was held not to afford any protection as she was not an employee

22
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

A

Neighbour Rule
Bottle of ginger beer with remains of a snail, she sued the manufacturers whose defence was they owed no duty of care and that she should sue the person who sold her the dink
the neighbour principle; reasonable care; duty of manufacturer to end-user
Details
• Claimant (Donoghue) fell ill when she drank a bottle of ginger beer which contained a decomposed snail
• The bottle was opaque & she had no idea that the bottle contained a decomposed snail
• The claimant’s friend purchased the bottle
• Claimant sued manufacturer
• Manufacturer claimed that there was no contract between them as the claimant’s friend purchased the bottle
Decision
• Damages awarded to claimant
Neighbor’s principle – extent of duty of care, who is my neighbour
• You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee that would be likely to injure your neighbour

23
Q

Herrington v British Railways 1971

A

Reckless disregard for safety. Led to Occupiers Liability act 1984
Herrington a six year old child strayed onto the track through a fence which the board had failed to maintain. They knew people took short cuts as stationmaster notified. The lord’s held that the board were liable. They did not take measures to prevent or manage the danger.

24
Q

Latimer v AEC 1953

A

Reasonable Care – no breach of duty of care
‘Properly maintained’ reasonable ‘safe place of work’
Mr Latimer used a hand trolley around the factory. Rainstorm caused flooding which became contaminated with cooling oil which made the floor slippery and caused him to slip. He claimed breech of statutory duty to keep the floor properly maintained. The employers not negligent as done all that a reasonable employer could be expected to do, bearing in mind the risk.

Details
• Severe thunderstorm flooded factory
• Floor became slippery
• Quantity of sawdust was used to clear up, but insufficient held
• Latimer slipped on floor & sought damages using factories act that floors must be ‘properly maintained’
Decision
• Latimer lost case
• Court found that normally floor was fine and employer had taken reasonable steps to deal with the danger to employees

25
Q

Mersey Docks v Coggins & Griffith 1946

A

Vicarious Liability of contractors Master/Servant Relationship
MD hired a crane to Griffiths that injured a person who sued MD. Lords stated they were liable as they had control of driver, ie hire and fire

Details
• Firm of stevedores hired from Harbour Board a crane with its driver to assist in
• loading a ship.
• A man working at the dock was injured because of negligence of
• crane driver.

DECISION
House of Lords held that Board had failed to prove that hirers had control of relevant
acts of workman so as to become liable as employers for his negligence. They
(hirers) had authority to tell him where to go and what to carry, but not how to
operate the crane.

26
Q

Paris v Stepney Council 1951

A

Duty to Individuals - Reasonable care – special duty of care -
higher duty of care owed to vulnerable employees

Mr Paris lost and eye during the war, only found out during medical for pension and given two weeks notice.
During this period he worked and lost his sight due to an accident, he sued his employers for negligence.

27
Q

Rose v Plenty 1976

A

Vicarious Liability of employer for acts of employee
Milkman carried a 13 year old child on his round against clear instructions and the child was injured. Company was held liable as driver was delivering milk in an unauthorised way. Liable even though employees actions were against company rules.

28
Q

Sutherland v Hatton + others 2002

A

Breakdown was not reasonably foreseeable by the school
Hatton depressed after divorce, retired on ill-health and claimed for stress
No special rules for stress; reasonable foreseeable applies. Employers should take employees statement at face value. Employers size matters in what is reasonable. Claimant must show harm from breach – occupational stress is not enough.

29
Q

Thompson + v Smiths Ship Repairers 1984

A

Forseeability – lack of social awareness/general practice

Excessive noise and ageing. exposure to noise from pneumatic machine
Employers hearing damaged by work prior to 1963 when government issued info. Could not have known of the problem before therefore had limited liability for the injury. employers duty to protect employees from known and reasonable foreseeable danger; date of knowledge of risk

30
Q

Wilsons & Clyde Coal v English 1938

A

Proximity – duty of care can’t be delegated to a manager or safety advisor ( employ a colliery agent in charge of safety)

machinery starting in mine, crush injury

A minor was leaving the pit when the haulage plane was switched on crushing him against the wall. The House of Lords held that it was the personal duty of the employer to take reasonable care.
English employed by Clyde Coal
He was crushed by haulage equipment
Employer argued that they had discharged duty to agent (managing the mine)
House of Lords held the employer can delegate the performance of duty but not the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DUTY

31
Q

Following a workplace accident, the injured person may sue for

A

Negligence or Breach of Statutory Duty

32
Q

The Neighbour Principle stems from:

A

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

•duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can foresee are likely to affect your neighbour.

33
Q

Extent of duty owed: Case Law and Three stage test.

A

Caparo v Dickman 1990 - 3 stage test

•Proximity
•Reasonable Foreseeability
•Is it fair, reasonable and just to impose a duty?
Example, Hillsborough Disaster in 1989.

34
Q

Duty owed by employers to employees, often known as Employers Liability - case law?

A 
Wilsons Clyde Coal v English
•A safe place of work 
•A safe system of working 
•Competent personnel 
•Appropriate IITS 
•Safe appliances and plant
35
Q

Safe Place of Work - case law?

A

Latimer v AEC Ltd(1953)
A heavy rainstorm flooded the factory making the floor oily. Employer put down sawdust and did everything reasonably practicable to deal with situation. Latimer slipped regardless and injured himself. He lost his claim that a safe place of work was not provided since everything reasonably practicable had been done.

36
Q

Safe System of Work - case law?

A

General Cleaning Contractors v Christmas (1953)

• A dangerous practice was overlooked resulting in injury. Lord Reid stated; it to be a fault of the employer, as he was aware of dangerous work systems and did nothing to change it. Employer failed to provide a safe system of work.

37
Q

Safe Plant and Equipment - case law?

A

Davie v New Merton Board Mills (1959)

•Davie was injured after a chisel broke whilst he was using it. He lost his claim for negligence in failing to provide safe plant and equipment as the employer would not have been able to know the equipment was defective, it was sourced from a reputatble manufacturer and the incident was not foreseeable.

38
Q

Provision of Competent Employees:- case law?

A

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co (1957)

•Management were aware of member of staff playing practical jokes and issued reprimands and warnings to him however they failed to stop it before Hudson became injured.

39
Q

To claim breach of statutory duty claimant must prove:

A

The defendant was obligated by the SD

  • The claimaint was within class of persons that statue applies
  • The statue was breached
  • The breach of statute caused the harm
  • The harm was the sort the statute aimed to prevent.
40
Q

Major defences to claim of BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY

A
  • Stature barred - eg no action on S2-8 of HASAWA due to S47.
  • No breach of duty
  • Duty was not owed
  • Harm not covered by statute
  • Breach did not cause loss - Corn v Weirs Glass (1960)
41
Q

Two types of damages:

A

General - not easily quantifiable i.e., injury to health, personal inconvenience etc.

Special - hospital fees, loss of earnings etc.

42
Q

Joint and Several Liabilities
Joint Tortfeasors
Lister v Romford Cold Storage

A

If more than one party is responsible for the negligent act they are all held individually liable for full damages. After successful claim, damages can be claimed from one party. That party may then claim contributions from the other parties also liable.

43
Q

Personal injury protocol under Civil Procedure Rules of 1999.

A
  1. Letter of claim sent to prospective defendant.
  2. Defendants reply within 21 days identifying their insurer.
  3. Investigation - Admit or deny liability.
  4. Proceedings, defence letter providing facts admitted, facts denied and defendants verion of eventa
44
Q

Occupiers Liability Act 1984

National Railway Board v Herrington

A

Duty to tresspassers owed when;

  • Occupier knows tresspassers are gaining access
  • Occupier is aware of a danger.
  • The risk is one which the occupier must offer some protection to.

NEBOSH DIPLOMA UNIT A (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions