Delict and Unjustified Enrichment Flashcards
(149 cards)
Define: Strict Liability
Where someone can be held liable in delict without the person who suffered injury or damage having to establish fault
Define: Joint Liability
Joint liability is where there is more than one wrongdoer. Can either be joint and several liability or several liability
Anderson v St Andrews Ambulance Association
Definition of joint and several liability as when Two or more persons contributed to the commission of one delict and therefore each person has made a material contribution to the delict
Steven v Broady Norman and Co
Joint and several liability: If A is injured by the joint fault of B and C then he may sue either one of them. If either B or C was unable to satisfy the decree (e.g. because they have gone bankrupt) then A could sue the other in respect of the same delict
Balfour v Baird
Joint and several liability: If A sues B for the full delict, he cannot later sue C for the same delict
Barker v Corus
If the wrongdoers are successfully sued then the pursuer will get a joint and several decree which will allow him to claim the full amount from either of the wrongdoers
Law Reform (Misc. Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 s.3(2)
where any person has paid damages or expenses due to an action for which he has been found liable, shall be entitled to recover from any other person who, if sued, might also have been held liable in respect of any loss or damage on which the action was founded, such contribution, if any, that the court may deem justified
Hook v McCallum
Several Liability: the wrongful acts of two or more people are not connected and thus there is no common harmful result
Define: vicarious liability
In vicarious liability a person is held liable for the wrongful acts or omissions of another. Applies generally to either the employer-employee or principle-agent relationships
Yewens v Noakes
Control test is used to identify an employer-employee relationship. ‘A servant is a person under the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work’
Stevenson Jordan and Harrison ltd v McDonald and Evans
Integration test: separates a contract of services from a contract for services. Where a person is under a contact of service, he is employed as part of a business and as an integral part of that business. Where a person is under a contract for business they are not integral, but only accessory, to a business.
Ready Mixed Concrete ltd v MPNI
Multiple test: three criteria for a contract of services
1) A servant agrees that, in consideration of a wage or some other remuneration, he will provide his own work and skill in the performance of a service for the master
2) He agrees, expressly or impliedly, he will be subject to the others control to a sufficient degree to make the other the master
3) The other provisions of the contract are consistent with it being a contract of service
Thoms v Royal Mail
Further criteria for the multiple test given as ‘mutuality of obligations’
Massey v Crown Life Assurance
Label test: the type of agreement between the parties cannot be changed simply by the type of label applied to it, however where the agreement is sufficiently ambiguous, a label may clarify the parties intentions
Marshall v William Sharp and Sons
There can be liability for an independent contractor in certain situations, i.e. where they are carrying out a duty for the employer that is required by statute
Kirby v NCB
Vicarious liability only applies when the employee was working within the scope of their employment. The Kirby test gives four scenarios- in the first 2 the employer is liable, whereas in the 3rd and 4th they are not:
1) The worker is doing what he was expressly or impliedly authorised to do
2) Where the employee is doing his job but in an unauthorised manner
3) Where the employee does something out of the scope of the task he was authorised to do
4) Where the employee uses his master’s time or tools for his own purposes
Lister v Hesley Hall
reconfigured the Kirby test to a certain extent. This test involves a ‘close connection’, i.e. where they employees delict was so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and reasonable to hold the employer liable.
What is negligence?
Negligence refers to the legal duty to take a particular degree of care in certain situations. There is liability for harm caused to legally protected interests from the failure to take the required degree of care. Negligence is essentially legally actionable carelessness
Donoghue v Stevenson
Laid down the three part algorithm for negligence:
1) There must be a duty of care owed to the pursuer
2) There must be a breach of that duty of care
3) The breach must cause a loss
Vaughn v Menlove
The standard of care implied by the duty of care is an obective one
Caparo industries v Dickman plc
Gives the current test used to establish whether a duty of care exists:
1) loss or injury must be reasonably forseeable
2) there must be a close degree of proximity between the parties
3) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care
What are the three criteria to establish a breach of the duty of care?
1) A voluntary act or omission by the defender as per Waugh v James K Allen
2) The harm to the pursuer must be a reasonable and probable consequence of the act or omission as per Muir v Glasgow Corporation
3) The act or omission must constitute negligence
Waugh v James K Allen
Criteria to establish a breach of the duty of care: voluntary act or omission
Muir v Glasgow Corporation
Criteria to establish a breach of the duty of care: the harm to the pursuer must be a reasonable and probable consequence of the defender’s act or omission (tea urn case)