Chapt 2 tort Flashcards
What is the duty of care equation?
Duty of care
+
Breach of duty
+
Causation of damage (remoteness)
= liability (can claim for damages)
Case that introduced concept of negligence
And use for General standard of care (breach)
“Reasonable person test”
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 1856 (Baron Alderson)
“The omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something that a prudent and reasonable man would NOT do”
Also introduced the concept of ‘reasonable man’- objective test
What did the neighbour principle establish?
3
Concept of a duty of care without contract
Liability without contract
Law of negligence began to develop
What is a duty of care?
Relationship between defendant and claimant.
Obligation on D to take proper care to avoid causing injury to claimant in all circs of case
What is meant by proximity when establishing a duty of care?
Physical proximity
Proximity in time
Proximity in relationship
Any form of relationship or physical closeness to the tortfeasor
Define negligence
Breach of legal duty to take care, which causes damage to the claimant.
The failure to act as a reasonable person would have done in the circs
Case: Blyth 1856 (B Alderson)
Explain the neighbour test
“Take reasonable care to avoid acts/omissions likely to harm a neighbour, who is someone so closely/directly affected that one ought to reasonably have them in contemplation when directing ones mind to the act/omission”
Lord Atkin in Donoghue and Stephenson 1932
Cases for reasonable forseeability
In duty of care
(3)
Donoghue v Stephenson 1932
Smith and others v Littlewoods ltd 1987
Kent v Griffiths 2000
would the reasonable person in the Ds position forsee that c might be harmed/ injured?
Cases for proximity in duty of care
3
Caparo - economic loss
Topp v London country bus ltd 1993- proximity in time/space( no proximity)
Watson v BBBC 2000- proximity in time/space
Kent v Griffiths 2000- time/space
McClougjlin v Obrien - proximity of relationship
Case for fair, just and reasonable for duty of care
L and another v Reading BC and others 2007
Hill v CC of S Yorkshire
General rule for for statutory authorities re liability to individuals
Main case?
Exception? (Case)
Hill v CC of S Yorkshire- floodgates/ reluctant
In general, courts reluctant to find stat authorities liable to individuals but they can do if the circs create a direct relationship.
In Osman v uk 1999, the echr stated that blanket immunity for police might be an infringement of art 6 echr but did not make a similar finding in Z and others v UK 2001
S1 Compensation Act
Rescuers police in doc?
what is the general rule in physical harm(2 cases)
Rule in psych harm?( 1 case)
Relevant case law
Ward v Hopkins / baker v Hopkins 1959-rescuers - physical harm (favourable treatment)
White and others v cc of s Yorkshire police and others 1999 in psych injury (no favourable treatment)
The police fail to arrest a criminal who later commits another crime.
Explain whether the police may then be liable in negligence (3)
2 cases
Statutory bodies such as the police are not generally liable and public policy grounds or that it is not generally considered just and reasonable to hold such that stat bodies are not liable and that the police authority are unlikely to be held liable here.
Relevant case is Hill v chief constable of West Yorkshire 1988 also police immunity is not absolute Osman v UK 1999
In Hill v CC of West Yorkshire police 1992 it was held that the police did not owe a duty of care in negligence towards the potential victim of a crime.
State the effect of Osman v UK 1999 on such police immunity (1)
Osman v uk established that police immunity is not absolute
Definition of a primary victim for nervous shock
Which case?
Must show that (duty, breach and psych illness- causation)
Some injury was reasonably forseeable by the defendant
AND
Actually involved or was or reasonably believed that they were within the “danger zone”
relevant case: Page v Smith (1995).
Primary victims only need to establish that physical harm was foreseeable. There is no requirement that psychiatric injury was foreseeable provided personal injury was foreseeable:
