A4 Civil Law Flashcards
Tort
English law civil wrong
Time limited 3 years
Proof for successful negligence claim
- The defendant was under a duty of care to the claimant
- that the duty had been breached through negligence
- That as a result of the breach the claimant suffered harm
- Foreseeability of the type of damage
Tortfeasor
The wrongdoer
Employers duty of care
To provide
1- A safe place of work
2- Safe systems of work
3- Safe plant, equipment and materials
4- Instruction, training and supervision
5- Reasonably competent fellow employees
Case law - Wilson and Clyde coal v English- crushed by haulage plant.
Main defences for a negligence claim
Denial - Accident never occurred No duty owed No breach of duty- not foreseeable, employers arrangements were reasonable Breach did not lead to damage Type of damage not foreseeable Volenti nonfit injura Contributory negligence Time expired (limitations act)
Concept of duty of care
The neighbour test - Donoghue v Stevenson
The duty of care owed by:
Designers
Manufacturers and suppliers to customers/ users
Occupiers of premises to those visiting the premises
Contractors to clients and vice versa
Extent of duty is bound to reasonableness and foreseeability
Elevated duty to those who are vulnerable Paris v Stepney - lost remaining eye
Contributory negligence
Where an individual contributes to his own injury
Damages awarded may be reduced
Balance of blameworthiness
Used to mitigate losses
Case law - Udder v Associated Portland cement - pigeon rescue
Vicarious liability
An employer may be held criminally liable for the acts and or omissions of his employees
Even if they wilfully disobey instructions
Employees must be acting in the course of employment
Master and servant
Case law - Rose v plenty - Milkman
Employers liability
Employers liability (compulsory insurance) act
Employers must insure against liability for injury or disease to employees
Min £5m most common £10m
Must display certs at place of business
Must keep a record of previous cover and insurances for 40 years
Joint tortfeasor
More than one company identified as the tortfeasor
Judge will decide who is liable based on balance of blameworthiness
Recover of damages made from a single insurer
Person injury protocol
Letter of claim *Summary of the facts *Detail of Loss The reply *Acknowledgement within 25hrs The investigation *Defendant has a max of 30 days for EL or 40 for PL claim to carry out investigations Reply must be then sent- admission, denial or partial admission
Occupiers liability
1957 - An occupier owes a common duty of care to all lawful visitors
1984- Extended cover to trespassers if
*Occupier is aware of a danger
*Occupier knows the trespasser may be gaining access
*Occupier might reasonably be expected to do something about the risk
Discharging duty by giving warnings is potentially limited.
Case law - British rail board v Herrington- child through fence: breach in fence was known about (duty of care to trespassers)
Main defences for breach of statute duty
Statute bared - section 47
No breach of duty - Latimer v AEC
Duty was not owed
Harm not covered by statute
Breach did not cause loss- Corn v Weirs glass
Contributory negligence - udder v associated Portland cement
Two types of compensation
General damages - compensation for general pain and suffering
Special damages - financial expenses such as medical costs, legal costs etc
What does the occupiers liability act 57 say about children
The occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
Employers must be aware of any lure or attraction to children such as a pond that could constitute a trap
Date of knowledge
Date of knowledge is the date the negligent party should have been aware of the associated risk which led to a particular injury.
Main importance for diseases/ occupational ill health where a particular agent may not have been known to cause harm
In Caparo v dickman what three criteria where established to show if a duty of care was owed.
1) reasonably foreseeable harm was suffered by the claimant
2) There was suitable proximity to the claimant and the defendant
3) It is fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.
Summary of civil law
Breach of tort Wong to an individual (individual can be a company) Action taken by injured party Heard in civil court Loss necessary for action Compensation for loss Liability proved on the balance of probabilities Can be insured against
Case law for safe place of work
Latimer v AEC ltd
Heavy rainfall flooded the floor of a factory, this resulted in oil that was usually in floor troffs washing over the factory floor.
The defendant put sawdust on the floor but they didn’t have enough to cover the whole floor. The claimant slipped and broke his ankle.
Provision of reasonably competent employees
1) Wilson and Clyde coal v English - injury from crushed haulage plant. At the time the mine owners argued it wasn’t their responsibility but that of his agent.
2) Hudson v Ridge manufacturing co - horseplay gone wrong, resulted in a broken wrist. Employee was known for horseplay but only ever issued warnings and reprimands.
