Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

NEGLIGENCE IN TORT SOAS > DUTY OF CARE > Flashcards

DUTY OF CARE Flashcards

1
Q

When was DofC first established?

A

By master of the rolls BRETT in HEAVEN v PENDER 1883

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

Where is the most widely accepted beginning on DofC?

A

DONOGHUE v STEVENSON 1932 -> LORD ATKIN

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

What principle was established by LORD ATKIN in which 1932 case?

A

The neighbour principle in DONOGHUGE v STEVENSON

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

What was the definition of neighbour as per LORD ATKIN

A

‘Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected’

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

Which case said policy arguments should be central idea behind D of C?

A

ANNS v MERTON 1978

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

Which case widened DofC to pure economic loss?

A

JUNIOR BOOKS v VEITCHI 1983

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

Which case began to limit where a DofC can be found?

A

HILL v CC WEST YORKSHIRE 1988

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

How did HILL 1988 restrict DofC?

A

Established there had to be sufficient proximity between C and D

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

Which case established the standard test for a DofC?

A

CAPARO v DICKMAN 1990

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

What is the CAPARO 1990 test?

A

Must meet 3 criteria:

  1. Foreseeability of injury
  2. Proximity between parties
  3. It is fair, just and reasonable to impose the DofC
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Case facts BISHOP ROCK 1996

A

Policy decision not to impose DofC on not for profit organisations as this would encourage defence practices unfairly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Which case was confirmed as still valid in BISHOP ROCK 1996?

A

ANNS v MERTON 1978

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

What is the objective standard for DofC?

A

That of an ordinary citizen -> the man on the Clapham omnibus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which case stated a person need only be reasonably competent, i.e. It’s not a high standard one is held to

A

WELLS v COOPER 1958

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

Which case recognised people do make mistakes they shouldn’t be liable for

A

THE OGOPOGO 1972

  • Botched rescue attempt in boat collision
  • It was an emergency situation where D’s tried their best = no DofC
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Why don’t courts establish too high a standard for DofC even for emergency responders?

A

To avoid discouraging people from helping others

17
Q

When can the standard for a DofC vary?

A

When children are involved -> MCHALE v WATSON 1966

- Unfair to hold a child to same standard as a reasonable adult

18
Q

What’s a good example for how the objective DofC test is normally effective

A

DRIVERS

19
Q

Two cases of drivers illustrating the general application of objective standard of a reasonable person?

A

NETTLESHIP 1971

BROOME v PERKINS 1987

20
Q

Case facts of NETTLESHIP 1971

A
  • New driver involved in an accident
  • Said they should only be held to the standard of a reasonable person who was a new driver
  • Court disagreed: by being on the road driving they should be held to the same objective standard of anyone else driving
21
Q

Case facts BROOME v PERKINS 1987

A
  • D was a diabetic who didn’t take his medication
  • Suffered an attack whilst driving and caused a collision
  • HELD: a reasonable diabetic would’ve taken precautions of this by taking their medication
22
Q

What standard are professionals held to?

A

Normal standard of a person in that profession -> higher than that for the man on the Clapham omnibus

23
Q

Which case considers there can be variation in professional opinion?

A

BOLAM 1957

24
Q

How does BOLAM 1957 account for differences in professional opinion?

A
  • Professionals will not be held liable if their actions accord with substantial and respectable body of opinion in their field
25
Q

Which case applied the BOLAM 1957 case in a field other than medicine?

A

CARTY v CROYDON LBC 2005

26
Q

What is the HAND FORMULA?

A

Dictates there will be a liability on D where the burden is less than the possibility of damage occurring, multiplied by loss suffered by C

27
Q

Case for how high the burden can be?

A

LATIMER 1953

28
Q

Case facts LATIMER 1953

A
  • Slippy floor of a factory
  • C fell and tried to bring a claim against them
  • HELD: D would have had to close the entire factory to avoid risk = too much of a burden so were not liable
29
Q

Case for how foreseeable the possibility of damage is?

A

BOLTON v STONE 1951

30
Q

Case facts BOLTON v STONE 1951

A
  • Cricketer hit a 6 that went out of the ground and hit C in the head, causing serious injury
  • Only 6 shots had left the ground in the past 30 years
  • HELD: not reasonably foreseeable as it happen so infrequently
31
Q

Cases for how much the damage suffered must affect C?

A

PARIS v STEPNEY BC 1951

LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD 1965

32
Q

Case facts PARIS v STEPNEY BC 1951

A
  • C only had one eye and was not given safety goggles at work
  • Was an accident and he lost sight in the other eye
  • Loss was particularly great as it completely blinded him
    = DofC owed
33
Q

Case facts LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD 1965

A
  • C was a blind man walking in the street
  • LEB were working and had left a manhole open
  • C fell into the hole and lost his hearing as well
  • Burden on D to prevent the risk was low -> fence would’ve been enough
  • Risk of someone suffering harm was foreseeable -> not just a blind person but anyone not paying attention
  • Loss suffered was particularly great as C was now blind and deaf
  • Established very clear DofC as per HAND PRINCIPLE
34
Q

How high must the burden of proof be proven on balance of probabilities?

A

51% that D caused the harm to C due to their breach of DofC

35
Q

What does RES IPSA LOQUITOR mean?

A

The thing speaks for itself

36
Q

Case for RIL

A

LONDON AND ST KATHRINES DOCKS 1865

37
Q

Case facts LONDON AND ST KATHRINES DOCKS 1865

A
  • C was suffered harm in an area managed by D
  • Even though there was little evidence of D’s liability, they were responsible for the area it happened in so were liable
38
Q

Which case is a direct contrast to LONDON AND ST KATHRINES DOCKS 1865?

A

WARD v TESCO 1976

39
Q

Case facts WARD v TESCO 1976

A
  • C slipped and fell on some yoghurt that was on the floor in tesco
  • Courts held that RIL should not be an easy way to allow a case to be established, should only be used when there is no other option = no liability

NEGLIGENCE IN TORT SOAS (5 decks)

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