Key Terms

Question 1

Burden of proof

Answer 1

The burden of proof in civil claims is on the balance of probabilites - i.e. it is more likely than not.

Question 2

Consequential economic loss

Answer 2

Consequential economic losses are financial losses suffered as a result of physical/personal damage, e.g. a driver’s lost earnings when recovering from injuries sustained in a car crash.

Question 3

CPA 1987

Answer 3

Consumer Protection Act 1987

Question 4

CRA 2015

Answer 4

Consumer Rights Act 2015

Question 5

Duty of care

Answer 5

A legal duty imposed on a person to take reasonable care in all the circumstances to avoid causing harm to another person.

Question 6

LR(CN)A 1945

Answer 6

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

Question 7

LR(MP)A 1934

Answer 7

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934

Question 8

MA 1967

Answer 8

Misrepresentation Act 1967

Question 9

Negligence

Answer 9

The breach (or omission) of a legal duty to take care which results in undesired injury or harm to the claimant, by the defendant.

Question 10

OLA 1957

Answer 10

Occupiers Liability Act 1957

Question 11

OLA 1984

Answer 11

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

Question 12

Omission

Answer 12

A failuire to act or do something

Question 13

Primary Victim

Answer 13

A person who suffers psychiatric injury/harm as a result of being directly involved in an incident. Need not have suffered any physical injury but must have either been in danger or reasonably believed that they were in danger.

Question 14

Pure Economic Loss (PEL)

Answer 14

Financial losses which are not sustained in consequnce of damage to the claimant or claimant’s property.

E.g. the lost earnings of someone caught in the traffic tailback resulting from a car crash.

Question 15

Reasonable Man

Answer 15

Hypothetical reasonable person who is prudent (careful) and takes into account ordinary considerations.

In applying legal test (e.g. relating to reasonable foreseability and standard of care), the court may consider how a reasonable man would have behaved.

Objective Test

Question 16

Remoteness

Answer 16

Damage suffered by the claimant must not be too remote - the consequences of the defendant’s actions must not have been so far removed that they were unforeseeable.

Question 17

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer 17

The thing speaks for itself

Proof concept. In the absence of any direct evidence as to what actually hapened certain matters can be inferred from the surrounding events in support of a negligence claim. For example, if a piano being moved into a building falls down and crushes a bystander, the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be used to support a claim that the piano-movers were acting negligenty. If they had not acted negligently, in the absence of any other stimulus, a piano would not otherwise have fallen on someone walking along the pavement.

Question 18

Secondary Victim

Answer 18

A person who sufferrs psychiatric harm as a result of seeing or hearing about something that has happened to someone else (such as a person who witnesses a car crash involving other people)

Question 19

Tort

Answer 19

A tort is a civil wrong, an act (or omission) that leads to injury or damage to another person or property.

Question 20

UCTA 1977

Answer 20

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Question 21

Vicarious Liability

Answer 21

Where a party is liable for the unlawful actions of a third party.

Contrast this with primary liability, where a party is liable for their own unlawful actions.