Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Project Management Year 1 > Law > Flashcards

Law Flashcards

1
Q

Tort

A

A civil wrong which causes harm to another

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

5 Types of Tort

A 
Negligence
Nuisance
Defamation
Trespass
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Tortfeasor

A

A person who commits the tort

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

Civil Standard of Proof

A

Balance of probabilities

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

Mandatory Injunction

A

Undo or remedy any damages

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

Prohibitory Injunction

A

Discontinue a wrongful act

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

Ratio Decidendi

A

Rule of law which future decisions are based

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

Obiter Dicta

A

A judge’s opinion not essential to the decision therefore not legally binding as a precedent.

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

Precedent

A

Similar cases should be decided in a similar way

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

Stare Decisis

A

The doctrine of binding precedent

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

Per Incurium

A

Careless decision

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

Damages

A

Compensatory Damages
Aggravated Damages
Punitive Damages

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

Interlocutory Injunction

A

Temporary injunction - Prevents defendant from doing something or to remedy any damage prior to a full hearing - Normally for Pollutors

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

Tort of Negligence claimant must show

A

Duty of Care
Breach of Duty
Suffering of Damage

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

Duty of Care

A

Caparo Test
Proximity needs to be established
Foreseeable Damage
Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

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

Breach of Duty

A

Show that behaviour has fallen below expectations

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

Suffering of Damage

A

Consequence has led to damage

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

Donoghue vs Stevenson

A

1932 AC 562 Lord Atkin
Concept of duty of care was established
Introduces concept of proximity (Neighbour principle)

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

Caparo v Dickman

A

1990
Created the 3 part test
Negligence development from Donoghue

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

Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd

A

1976
Res Ipsa Loquitur - Thing speaks for itself
Establish a prima facie case of negligence
Defendant needs to prove they were not negligent

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

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

A

1969
But For defendant actions they wouldnt suffered loss
Hospital not liable, would act have occurred

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

Causation

A

Claimant needs to show had the breach not occurred there would be no damage
Breach-Damage connection (but for)

23
Q 
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd
A

[1967] Application / [1961] Based
Remoteness
Frostbite not unforeseeable of extremely cold weather

24
Q

Limitation period for Negligence

A

6 Years

25
Q

Volenti non fit injuria and Defence

A

No injury can be done to a willing person
There has been agreement to assume the risk
Full knowledge to the nature and extent of the risk
A voluntary decision by the claimant to assume the risk

26
Q

Negligence Definition

A

Failure on the part of the defendant to take care as the law requires to ensure that no harm comes to the plaintiff

27
Q

Professional Negligence

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee

A

Standard of care expected someone carries out a job
Judge McNair in 1957
Bolam Test

28
Q

Expert Evidence

A

Fellow members of the defendants profession

29
Q

No Experience

Nettleship v Weston

A

1971

Standard of care of learner driver same as experienced

30
Q

Vicarious Liability

A

Imposing strict liability of employers on the actions of their employees

31
Q

Storey vs Aston

A

1869
Caused accident due to negligence
Frolic of his own established - no liability

32
Q

Salmond Test

A

A tort is committed in employment if :
Wrongful act authorised by the master
Wrongful and unauthorised act authorised by the master.

33
Q

Occupier

A

A person who has sufficient control of the premises/ land.

34
Q

Occupiers Liability

A

A specialised branch of negligence, and allows a claimant to sue an occupier of land or premises for damage or personal injury which occurs on the premises.

35
Q

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

A

Section 4

Those in charge have to take reasonable care of visitors

36
Q

Commissioner for Railways v McDermott

A

1967
Occupier to have control over safety
There is proximity between occupier, duty of care arises

37
Q

Occupiers Liability Act

A

1957
Created common duty of care, liability similar to negligent
Common law exists, alongside statutory common DOC

38
Q

Premises Defintion

A

A fixed or movable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft

39
Q

Fisher v CHT Ltd

A

1966
Joint Liability, <1 Occupier, depends who failed their duty
Contractor joint w/ club, plasterer electric shock
Each defendant owed duty of care

40
Q

To be Occupier Liable

A

Degree of control over premises
Control allows assessment of state and safety
Appreciation of failing to take care may result in injury
Control need not be exclusive or apply to whole premises

41
Q

Unfair Contract Terms Act

A

1977
Occupier cannot exclude or limit liability
Restriction must satisfy requirement of reasonableness

42
Q

Trespassers

A

Not visitors under 1957 Oc Li Act
1984 Occupier liable if known danger on land
Children careful of features of allurement
Actionable without damage

43
Q

Trespass Liability

A

How serious was the danger
How specific was the warning
How the warning was given
If warning was heeded then he would be reasonably safe

44
Q

3 types of Nuisance and Remedies

A

Public, Private, Statutory

Injunction, Damages Abatement

45
Q

Public Nuisance

A

A-G v PYA Quarries 1957
Nuisance that will impact on more than just an individual
Individual claimants need to show they’ve suffered more
(Harper v Haden & Son 1933)

46
Q

Private Nuisance

A

Reed v Lyons & Co Ltd 1945
Interference of another use of enjoyment or right over land or damage
Noise (transient?), smell, dust, encroachment

47
Q

Noise Nuisance

A

Control of Pollution Act 1974

Halsey v Esso Petrol 1961 - noise measured in decibels

48
Q

Granting Injunction Test

A 
American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd 1975
Is there a serious issue
Would damages be appropriate 
Balance of convenience lay 
Other special factors
49
Q

Nuisance Locality

A

Roskell v Whitmorth 1871

Character of neighbourhood

50
Q

Statutory Nuisance

A

Defined by statute in 79-82 EPAct 1990

Not stopped/abated = criminal offence

51
Q

Rylands vs Fletcher

A

1868
Things that have been brought onto land and escaped
Reservoir water escaping, flooding mining tunnels
Contractor failed to block shafts / duty to prevent escape

52
Q

Ruling of Rylands vs Fletcher

A

Rule imposes strict liability - if escaped then liable

They had a duty to prevent escape

53
Q

Refined Rylands vs Fletcher

A

Cambridge Water vs Eastern Counties Leather plc 1994

The damage must be foreseeable

Project Management Year 1 (13 decks)

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