Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort Law > Exam Revision > Flashcards

Exam Revision Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Benjamin Cardozo

A

I sought certainty. I was oppressed and disheartened when I found that the quest for it was futile

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

Torts are…

A

Civil wrongs for which the law will provide a remedy. They will be enforceable against one party, to the benefit of another

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

Peter Cane

A

Tort law is purely protective, does not lay down rules

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

Negligence elements

A

Doc
Breach
Causation
Damage
Remoteness
Defences

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

Urbanaski v Patel

A

Surgeon removed patients only kidney causing death, surgeon liable to the patients father who donated his own kidney to save her life

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

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

A

BBBC had a duty to be proactive - Lord Phillips

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

Caparo test

A

Lord Bridge’s 3 requirements
1. Reasonably foreseeable harm
2. Proximity
3. Fair, just and reasonable

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

Lord Reed’s approach in Robinson

A

Courts will follow precedents in established categories, only relying on the caparo test in novel cases

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

Relevant considerations: cost of taking care

A

Latimer

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

Relevant considerations: gravity of harm

A

Paris v Stephney

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Relevant considerations: probability of harm

A

Read v Lyons

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

Factual causation

A

But for test - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington

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

Legal causation

A

Real, direct or effective cause - Stapley v Gypsum Mines

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

The principle of de minimus non curat lex

A

The law does not take account of inconsequential or trifling harms

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

Remoteness

A

A line between recoverable and irrecoverable loss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Oversees tankship

A

Damage must be a reasonably foreseeable type

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Lord Atkins in Donoghue

A

Neighbour Principle “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

John Fleming on Lord Atkins neighbour principle

A

‘A sacrosanct preamble to any judicial disquisition on duty’
- contains noticable ambiguity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Lord Oliver in Caparo on proximity

A

-‘Proximity is no more than a label’
-Proximity is not a ‘definable concept’
-Proximity is used pragmatically by judges

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Incremental development

A

“That the law should develop novel categories incrementally and by analogy with established categories - Brennan J, Sutherland shire council v Heyman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Guido Calabresi

A

‘Accident costs are less burdensome when spread across the community’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Dangers of pro-claimant approach to proof of causation

A

Insurance premiums will rise if it’s easier for claimants to bring a case, causes a social issue in an effort to help claimants

23
Q

Lord Toulson in Michael’s case

A

“The common law does not generally impose liability for pure omissions”

24
Q

A person who didn’t create the danger will not be liable for omitting to help unless…

A

-assumed responsibility
-special level of control over the source of danger
-A’s status creates an obligation to protect V from that danger - Robinson

25
Q

Lord Keith in Hill

A

Police are liable “like anyone else” in tort for their acts and omissions

26
Q

Unreasonable interference

A

‘Any activity causing or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with C’s land or C’s use and enjoyment of that land’

27
Q

Lord Westbury’s distinction in private nuisance

A

If effects comfort = balancing act
If substantial interference = more straightforward and likely to award damages

28
Q

Bamford v Turnley

A

Private nuisance is “a rule of give and take, live and let live”

29
Q

Theisiger in Sturges

A

“What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermensey”

30
Q

Malice = intentional annoyance

A

Christie v Davey - noisy on purpose “only for the purpose of annoyance”
Hollywood silver fox farm - fired a gun intentionally to scare the foxes

31
Q

Ryland and Fletcher elements

A

-accumulation
-non natural use
-escape
-damage
-remoteness
-defences

32
Q

Benning v Wong

A

“The whole point of Rylands is that the exercise of care is irrelevant”

33
Q

Accumulation in Rylands

A

The accumulation must be voluntary

34
Q

Bingham in Transco

A

Non natural use of the land has to be extraordinary and unusual

35
Q

Defences to Rylands

A

Act of god ‘Nichols’
Unforeseeable act of a third party - Rickards v Lothian
Consent - Cory Brothers
Necessity - Rigby
Statutory authority

36
Q

Lord Hoffman in Transco

A

Rylands rule will not protect from fire damage, “make sure you have insurance”

37
Q

Defences to private nuisance

A

Prescription - Sturges v Bridgman
Statutory authority - Allen v Gulf oil
Partial defence of contributory negligence - Trevett v Lee

38
Q

Lord Scarman - a judicial disagreement in McLoughlin v Obrien

A

Scarman - judges should always base their decision on principle

39
Q

Lord Edmund Davies: a judicial disagreement in McLoughlin v Obrien

A

Davies - found Scarman’s view novek and startling. Emphasised that judges regularly ground their decisions in policy

40
Q

Negligence elements

A
  1. The defendant owed the claimant a doc
  2. The duty has been breached: D was negligent
  3. The defendant’s breach of duty has caused the claimant to suffer loss or damage of a relevant sort
  4. That damage is caused in law by the defendant’s negligence/is not too remote/is within scooe of the duty
41
Q

Lord Reed in Dorset Yacht

A

The neighbour principle ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for it’s exclusion

42
Q

Australian ‘salient features’ approach

A

Australian HC abandoned caparo test, adopted salient features approach. It addresses matters of principle before it turns to policy considerations. -Sullivan v Moody

43
Q

Kirby J’s critique of the ‘salient features approach to DOC

A
  • lacks clarity
44
Q

Purpose of the compensation act 2006, s1

A

To address the percieved problem of blame culture by considering whether imposing a duty will stop people from doing a desirable thing

45
Q

Bolam v Friern Hospital

A

“A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he acts in accordance with accepted medical practice”

46
Q

Novus Actus Interveniens

A

A break in the causal chain
Lord Wright, a NAI is something unwarrantable

47
Q

Hart and Honore on NAI

A

Described the doctrine as ‘cloudy’
Criticised the heavy use of metaphor e.g. ‘causal chain’ when judges and lawyers discuss the doctrine

48
Q

Liability for the conduct of third parties

A

Dorset Yacht - it must be ‘very likely to happen’
Lamb ‘ a degree of likelihood amounting to almost inevitable

49
Q

McGhee

A

C must show that D breached the duty owed and materially increased the risk to which C was exposed

50
Q

Barker v Corus (placing a restriction on fairchild)

A

The extent of liability is confined to the extent to which D materially increased the risk to which C was exposed

51
Q

The compensation act 2006, s3(1)

A

The mesothelioma amendment
The responsible person is liable for all relevant harm even if C was exposed to asbestos by others. Means c does not have to sue each careless employer

52
Q

Sienkiewicz, what constitutes a material increase in risk?

A

“Material” excludes insignificant risk

53
Q

American approach to asbestos exposure

A

Market share liability - Sindell v Abott
Each manufacturer held liable for the proportion of C’s injury that they owned shares of in the free market

54
Q

Snell v Farrell (canadian)

A

The US medical crisis of the 70s; inflated insurance premiums due to lots of claims

Tort Law (3 decks)

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