Law of Tort Flashcards
two stage test
- What is it?
- What key case did it come from?
What lecture notes is this concept found in?
Law: Tort Lecture #2 - Liabililty for negligence (Duty of Care) 18/09
- is there proximity, based on foreseeability? AND is there any public policy that speaks to the event?
- Anns v Merton LBC 1978
https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/anns-v-merton-lbc-1978#:~:text=The%20House%20of%20Lords%2C%20in,be%20a%20duty%20of%20care.
Neighbor principle
- What is it?
- Who said it?
- What key case did it come from?
What lecture notes is this concept found in?
Law: Tort Lecture #2 - Liabililty for negligence (Duty of Care) 18/09
underlies all whole range of duties within the duty of care. Avoiding acts as ommissions that could be reasonably forseeable to cause harm to others.
- Lord Atkin
- Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL Sc) (Snail in the Bottle case)
3 stage test
- What is it?
- What key case did it come from?
What lecture notes is this concept found in?
Law: Tort Lecture #2 - Liabililty for negligence (Duty of Care) 18/09
- used to determine duty of care in a Tort case by looking at, a. Foreseeability, b. proxmity, and c.fairness
- Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2
https://uollb.com/blogs/uol/caparo-three-part-test?srsltid=AfmBOoqfqzDLLmIxO-j53Inv_kSpQNKnZgvoHojdk51uEYuVNA5MeJFF
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/caparo-industries-v-dickman.php
Dulieu v White 1901
States that you CAN be liable for pyschiatric harm.
In Dulieu v. White & Sons [1901] 2 K.B. 669 the Court of Appeal enunciated a narrow and relatively simple rule: psychiatric injury was only actionable if it arose from the plaintiff’s reasonably apprehended fear for his safety.
McLoughlin v O’Brian [1983] 1 AC 410
Moveable aftermath.
Mental injury could come from the aftermath of the event, and the defendant could still be liable.
Hicks v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police [1992] 2 All ER 65
no liability for straight shock
https://lawprof.co/tort/kinds-of-damage-cases/hicks-v-chief-constable-of-the-south-yorkshire-police-1992-2-all-er-65/#:~:text=Facts%3A,experienced%20prior%20to%20their%20deaths
Page v Smith [1996] AC 155
provided it was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer some physical injury as a result of D’s negligence, it was not necessary that the type of harm caused was itself reasonably foreseeable
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/page-v-smith.php
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1992] 1 AC 310
Primary v Secondary Victims
The House of Lords, in finding for D, held that, in cases of purely psychiatric damage caused by negligence, a distinction must be drawn between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ victims. A primary victim was one who was present at the event as a participant, and would thus be owed a duty-of-care by D, subject to harm caused being foreseeable, of course. A secondary victim, by contrast, would only succeed if they fell within certain criteria. Such persons must establish:
thin-skull rule
The rule that a tortfeasor cannot complain if the injuries he has caused turn out to be more serious than expected because his victim suffered from a pre-existing weakness, such as an unusually thin skull. A tortfeasor must take his victim as he finds him (Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405)
Mental Injury
- Controversal scope of liability
- proximity and policiy still remain
REQUIRES: a real/recognised pychiatric condition
nonfeasance vs misfeasance vs malfeasance
Nonfeasance: intentional failure to perform a required duty or obligation.
Misfeasance: performing an action incorrectly or a legal act performed in an illegal manner.
Malfeasance: when a party causes injury to another party on purpose.
“crushing liability” and “floodgates”
crushing liability: One person cannot always feasibly handle the consequences of their actions in an economic or fair way. thus making tort law difficult to administer
Floodgates: without clear boundaries and ideas of what consitutes a tort, too many people (floodgates) would make claims that would overwhelm the system.
Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
Bourhill v Young [1943] AC 92
establishes the principles of proximity.
juts because you may have been in the vicinity of the crime doesn’t mean that you can claim damages, even it if appears you have been effected
