Law Of Tort Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Define ‘Tort’

A

A civil wrong not covered by a breach of contract which allows the claimant to sue

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

What name is given to a person who commits a Tort?

A

A tortfeasor

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

What three things are required for a successful negligence claim?

A

Duty owed
Duty breached
Damaged as a result

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

How does Lord Atkin define neighbour in Donoghue v Stevenson?

A

“Persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected by my actions/omissions”

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

What additional three aspects are required for a duty of care from Caparo v Dickman

A

Reasonable, foreseeable harm
Sufficient proximity between parties
Fair, just and reasonable

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

What does Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire say?

A

Duty by analogy, if previous cases say a dirty is owed, there is no need to decide upon fair, just and reasonable

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

What does Mulcahy v MOD tell us?

A

No duty exists for duty in battle/ combat immunity

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

In which case was it said that solicitors immunity for negligence no longer pertains?

A

Hall v Simons

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

How is breach of duty of care defined in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks?

A

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do

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

Why was D not liable in Mullin v Richards?

A

Children have different standards than Adults

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

Why was D liable in Nettleship v Weston?

A

Learner drivers are treated the same as experienced drivers. Judged by standards of a reasonable person, D’s incompetent best is not good enough

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

Explain the facts and decision in Bolam v Friern Hospital?

A

B suffered injury as a result of no drugs given prior to shock treatment.
Hospital was not careless, as they were acting typically

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

What four other aspects are taken into account when deciding whether D has breached a duty

A

Likelihood of harm - Bolton v Stone
Seriousness of possible injury - Paris v Steprey BC
Utility of D’s act - Simonds v Iow council
Practicality of taking precautions - Latima v AEC

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

What rule was illustrated in Scott v London and St Kathrine Docks?

A

if the incident is highly likely to have been caused by D’s negligence, then res ipsa loquitur (let the facts speak for themselves). D must prove a lack of negligence.

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

Why did the claimant lose in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital?

A

There was a duty beached which did not cause loss

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

Explain the facts and decision in the Wagon Mound and Hughes v Lord Advocate

A

Mound and Hughes - D caused an oli leak on harbour same time welders we’re working on the wharf. Oli caused unexpected explosions and caused damages.
Held : - D is not responsible for fire damage but is responsible for cleaning up the oil spill.

Hughes v Lord Advocate - Roadworks lit by oli lamps. Boys threw lamps into a hole causing an explosion to which the boys were injured by.
Held: - Boys could claim as burns were foreseeable