A10 CIVIL LAW Flashcards
10.1 COMMON LAW DUTIES
1
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
1
10.1 MAIN DEFENCES TO CLAIMS OF NEGLIGENCE
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
10.1 CONCEPT OF DUTY OF CARE
-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)
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
1
10.1 DAMAGE FOR WHICH THE TORTFEASOR IS LIABLE AND RELEVANCE OF DAMAGE FOR FORESEEABLE TYPE, DATE AND KNOWELDGE OF RISK
1
10.1 GREATER DUTY OF CARE TO MORE VULNERABLE INDIVIDUALS
1
10.1 CONCEPT OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1
10.2 BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY, DEFENCES AND DAMAGE
1
10.2 PRINCIPLE THAT A BREACH OF A STATUTORY DUTY MAY GIVE RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY. CRITERIA FOR A SUCCESSFUL ACTION
1
10.2 THE MAIN DEFENCES TO THE TORT (DELICT) OF BREACH OF STATUTORY DUTY
- 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.
10.2 FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES; GENERAL AND SPECIAL
1
10.2 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ITS EFFECTS
1
- 2 THE CONCEPT OF JOINT TORTFEASORTS:
- MEANING OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITIES
- RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FROM JOINT TORTFEASOR
1
10.2 PERSONAL INJURY ACTION PROTOCOL UNDER THE CIVIL PROCEDURES RULES
1
10.3 OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
THE MAIN PROVISION OF THE OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACTS 1957 AND 1984 OR THE OCCUPIERS LIABILITY (SCOTLAND) ACT 1960
1
Bradford v Robinson Rentals 1967
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.
Caparo v Dickman 1990
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.
Corn v Weirs Glass 1960
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.
Davie v New Merton Board Mills 1958
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.
Donaldson v Hays Distribution Services
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
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932
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
Herrington v British Railways 1971
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.
Latimer v AEC 1953
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
