Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law revision > Liability in Negligence > Flashcards

Liability in Negligence Flashcards

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

What is the tort of negligence?

A

The concept of a defendant breaching a legal duty of care, leading to a claimant being harmed or suffering loss.

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

What is a person who commits a tort called?

A

A tortfeasor

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

When the law of tort is applied to negligence, judges attempt to meet the 4 aims of tort. Name them

A

Corrective justice

Compensation

Deterrence

Vindication

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

What is the aim of corrective justice?

A

If a person’s livelihood is interfered with by another, then they should be compensated by being put back into the position they would be in had the tort not occurred

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

What is the aim of compensation?

A

Justice for the claimant can be achieved in most cases by requiring the defendant to pay damages for any loss suffered after fault has been imposed

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

What is the aim of deterrence?

A

Decisions made in the tort of negligence also look to deter future careless activity or behaviour through the imposition of liability

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

What is the aim of vindication?

A

Some negligence claims are brought to find out what actually happened. Often, this is to attract publicity in hopes to prevent the reoccurrence of incidents

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

What are the 3 types of joint liability?

A

Independent, several, or joint

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

What are the two types of liability?

A

Fault (personal) liability and strict liability

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

What is fault (personal) liability

A

When a tortfeasor has been found liable, they are responsible for the harm, and therefore the compensation

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

What is strict liability?

A

Strict liability refers to a situation where a person will be held liable even if they were not at fault

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

What is independent liability?

A

This type of liability occurs when a claimant has suffered harm as a result of two separate torts

Each defendant is liable for the damage they have caused

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

What is several liability?

A

When more than one defendant acts independently to cause the same damage to the claimant

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

Vision Golf Ltd v Weightmans [2005]

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

In what two ways can joint liability arise?

A
  • Two or more people share a joint purpose to commit the same wrongful act (acting in common design or plan)
  • By way of vicarious liability

Each tortfeasor is liable for the full amount of compensation, but the claimant can only recover the amount once

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

The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Section 1

A

The person looking to claim the contribution must be actually or theoretically liable

Any person liable for any damage suffered by another may recover a contribution from anyone liable in respect of the same harm (if jointly liable or otherwise).

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

The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

Section 2

A

This section deals with the amount of a contribution

The courts will decide what amount is just and equitable

The courts will consider all of the circumstances, including to what degree each party is blameworthy (usually as a percentage)

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

What is vicarious liability?

A

When liability may also fall upon somebody who has authorised or voluntarily overlooked a tort

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

Why does vicarious liability look mainly to economic points?

A

Employers are responsible for their employees’ actions

Compensation has to come from a solvent (has money) defendant, most likely the employer

The employer should be insured, so can spread the risk, but it also incentivises the employer to reduce risks (e.g. changing work environment, recruitment processes)

Makes rare events even rarer

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

What did Lord Pearce say in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Shatwell [1965]?

A

If the worker does something wrong, the employer is liable

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

What are the two requirements of vicarious liability?

A
  1. There must be an employer/employee relationship or a relationship that is ‘akin to employment” between the defendant and the person who has actually caused the harm
  2. The employee must be acting in the course of employment when the tort is committed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is an employee?

A

An employee is employed under a contract of service. An independent contractor is employed under a contract for services. An employer will not be liable for any torts made by an independent contractor.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

In Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society (2012), Lord Phillips found five policy areas regarding the relationship between employers/employees as a whole. Name them

A

the employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability

the tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer

the employee’s activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer; the employer, by employing the employee to carry on the activity will have created the risk of the tort committed by the employee

the employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Cox v Ministry of Justice [2014]

A

Facts: An inmate was carrying out paid work under supervision and dropped a large bag of rice on her back

Held: The ministry of justice was found to be vicariously liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What are the four tests to determine whether someone is an employee?

A

The control test

The business integration test

The multiple test

The business on their own account test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is the control test?

A

Based on the master-servant premise, it considers that the employee must be under the control of the employer when the work was conducted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

In what case was the control test created?

A

Lord Denning created the control test in the case of Ferguson v John Dawson and Partners [1976]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is the multiple test?

A

To establish a contract for service, the courts had to satisfy three conditions:

  • The ‘worker’ agrees to a wage to provide skills or labour for the other person
  • The ‘worker’ agrees to be under the other’s control, making the other the master
  • The other terms of the contracts are consistent with the contract being one of service
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

In what case was the multiple test created?

A

Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and NI (1968)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What is the business integration test?

A

This looked at whether the employee’s work was an integral part of the business. If it was, then there would be a contract of employment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

In what case was the business integration test created?

A

Lord Denning created the business integration test in the case of Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v MacDonald and Evans (1952)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What is the business on their own account test?

A

The High Court felt that it was important to ask whether the ‘worker’ is conducting the service as a person in business or on their own account.

33
Q

In what case was the business on their own account test created?

A

Market Investigations Lt d v Minister of Social Security (1969)

34
Q

What factors are taken into account for the business on their own account test?

A
  • use of their own premises and equipment
  • hiring of their own workers
  • taking of financial risk (and to what degree)
  • degree of responsibility for investment and management.
35
Q

What two tests are used to determine whether somebody is acting in the course of employment?

A

The Salmond test and The close connection test

36
Q

What is questioned in The Salmond Test?

A

Whether the employee’s harmful act is a ‘wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master

37
Q

The Salmond Test:

In what two ways can a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master occur?

A

A wrongful act authorised by the employer

A wrongful and unauthorised way of some act authorised by the employer

38
Q

What two cases cover a wrongful act authorised by the employer?

A

Poland v Parr [1927]

Warren v Henleys [1948]

39
Q

Poland v Parr [1927]

A

Facts: A carter mistakenly hit a boy on suspicion that he was stealing a company cart

Held: The employer was vicariously liable. The employee has an implied authority to protect company property

40
Q

Warren v Henleys [1948]

A

Facts: On threatening to report an incident to an attendant’s employer, the attendant punched a customer

Held: This was an act of personal revenge, not one in the course of employment, so the employer was not vicariously liable

41
Q

Limpus v London General Omnibus [1862]

A

The employee ignores a direct instruction not to do something

An omnibus driver’s employers gave instructions not to race or obstruct another omnibus. The driver drove his own across the path of another.

42
Q

Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [1942]

A

The employee acts carelessly

A lorry driver lit a match to light a cigarette, throwing it on the floor while transferring petrol from a lorry to a tank. This caused an explosion.

43
Q

Rose v Plenty [1976]

A

Using unauthorised help, so long as this does not benefit the employer

A milkman allowed children to assist him in his milk round, where one child was injured.

44
Q

Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust [2006]

A

The employee breaches a statutory duty

A manager was accused of bullying a worker. The duty under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is on the employer as the harassment was during the course of employment

45
Q

Beard v London General Omnibus [1900]

A

The employee does something that is not connected with their job

An omnibus conductor drove outside of the bus route quickly, in the absence of the bus driver. He negligently hit and injured a man.

46
Q

Hilton v Thomas Burton [1961]

A

The employee diverts from their normal work on a “frolic”

Workmen took an unauthorized break. They left their place of work and when returning in a works van they crashed and killed someone.

47
Q

Williams v Hemphill [1966]

A

The employee diverts from their normal work on a “frolic”

A lorry driver deviated substantially from his route against his employers’ instructions. The driver then caused an accident on the detour.

48
Q

Twin v Bean’s Express [1946]

A

Giving a lift in a company vehicle

A can driver gave a lift in a works’ van, which the driver had been expressly forbidden to give lifts.

49
Q

Young v Edward Box [1951]

A

Giving a lift in a company vehicle

A lorry driver employed by a firm of contractors, contrary to his express instructions, gave an employee of another firm of contractors a lift in his lorry. The passenger was injured.

50
Q

Makanjuola v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1990]

A

The employee acts outside of the usual boundaries of work

A plain-clothed police officer gained entry to premises by production of his warrant card whilst off-duty.

51
Q

Smith v Stages [1989]

A

Salmond test to and from work

Facts: An employee was in a road traffic incident after working elsewhere. He was paid for the journey

Held: This was in the course of employment so the employer was vicariously liable

52
Q

Why was the close connection test developed?

A

The courts developed this test for circumstances where they were faced with allegations of intentional wrongdoing

Under Salmond, the company would not be vicariously liable

53
Q

In what case was the close connection test developed?

A

Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]

Facts: The warden of a school for boys sexually assaulted pupils at the school

Held: The warden was there to care for the boys and so the tort was closely connected to employment

54
Q

Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]

A

Facts: The warden of a school for boys sexually assaulted pupils at the school

Held: The warden was there to care for the boys and so the tort was closely connected to employment

55
Q

In what case is an exception to the close connection test found?

A

N v Chief Constable of Merseyside (2006)

56
Q

Name three cases that have broadened the boundaries of the close connection test

A
  • Maga v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the RC Church (2010)
  • JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth RC Diocesan Trust (2012)
  • Mohamud v WM Morrisons (2016)
57
Q

Name three cases that have affirmed the authority in Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]

A

Mattis v Pollock [2003]

Gravil v Carroll [2008]

Ministry of Defence v Radclyffe [2009]

58
Q

N V Chief Constable of Merseyside [2004]

A

Facts: A police officer sexually assaulted an intoxicated woman. He was wearing a uniform which made the woman believe she was being detained.

Held: He was in a private car so there was not a close connection

59
Q

Maga v The Trustees of the Birmingham Archdiocese of the RC Church [2010]

A

Facts: A non-catholic attended a youth club in a catholic church and was abused by a priest

Held: There was a close connection, even though the boy had nothing to do with the catholic church. The church was vicariously liable

60
Q

JGE v Trustees of the Portsmouth RC Diocesan Trust [2012]

A

Facts: A Morrisons employee verbally and physically assaulted a customer

Held: The employee was there to serve customers for Morrisons. There was vicarious liability

61
Q

Nervous shock

What are the two types of victims?

A

Primary victims and Secondary victims

62
Q

Nervous shock

What is a primary victim?

A

A person who either suffers physical injury as a result of another person’s negligence

Where it was reasonably foreseeable that they could have been physically injured as a result of another person’s negligence and as a result they have suffered a psychiatric injury

63
Q

In what case was the distinction between primary and secondary victims made?

A

Bourhill v Young [1943]

64
Q

What case determined that rescuers are primary victims?

A

Alcock v CC South Yorkshire [1992]

65
Q

What two cases affirmed that rescuers are primary victims?

A

Chadwick v BRB [1967] and Hale v London Underground [1993]

66
Q

What case changed the position of rescuers as primary victims?

A

White and others v CC South yorkshire [1998]

67
Q

What is a secondary victim?

A

A secondary victim is a person who suffers psychiatric injury as a result of another person’s negligence, but was not exposed to danger.

68
Q

What are 6 issues with nervous shock?

A

Reasonable fortitude

Status of rescuers

Immediate aftermath

Sudden shock

Law commission recommendations

Assessment of psychiatric harm

69
Q

Victoria Railway Commissioners v Coultas [1888]

A

Psychological harm was too remote

70
Q

Duleiu v White [1901]

A

Over-ruled the judgement that psychological harm was too remote

Facts: The claimant was pregnant and behind the bar in a pub. A horse and cart crashed into the pub. The claimant was not physically injured but feared for her safety and suffered shock. She gave birth prematurely nine days later and the child suffered developmental problems

Held: An action could lie in negligence for nervous shock arising from a reasonable fear for one’s own immediate safety

71
Q

Vernon v Bosley [1997]

A

Facts: The claimant suffered distress after witnessing fire fighters attempt to rescue her children from the wreckage of a car following a road traffic accident. She suffered no physical harm herself, but sought to recover damages for psychiatric injury.

The authority at the time was Alcock

Held: Distress is not a medically recognised condition but simply a state of mind

72
Q

Kralj v Mcgrath [1986]

A

Facts: The defendant negligently delivered twins, causing one to die. The claimant suffered shock and therefore a longer recovery

Held: Grief which delays recovery may give rise to nervous shock and damages may be awarded to reflect this.

73
Q

Leach v CC Gloucester Constabulary [1999]

A

Facts: The claimant acted as an appropriate adult during the police questioning of a serial killer. She was given no prior warning about the nature of the crimes and details she would see. She suffered PTSD and a stroke as a result

Held: There was proximity and the defendant assumed responsibility as to the claimant’s wellbeing

74
Q

Chadwick v BRB [1967]

A

Facts: Chadwick lived 200 yards from the scene of a train crash and attended the scene to provide some assistance. He worked through the night crawling beneath the wreckage helping the trapped victims. He suffered anxiety and received inpatient treatment

Held: The defendant owed Chadwick a duty of care since it was reasonably foreseeable that somebody might try to rescue the passengers and suffer injury in the process

75
Q

Bourhill v Young [1943]

A

Facts: The defendant drove his motorcycle past a tram at excessive speed and collided with a car 50 feet away from where the claimant was standing. The defendant was killed by the impact. The claimant heard the collision but did not see it. A short time later, the claimant walked past where the incident occurred. The body had been removed but there was a lot of blood on the road. She went into shock and her baby was stillborn. She brought a negligence claim against the defendant’s estate.

Held: No duty of care was owed by the defendant to the claimant. There was not sufficient proximity between them when the incident occurred

76
Q

Alcock v CC South Yorkshire [1992]

A

Facts: South Yorkshire Police had been responsible for crowd control at a football match and had been negligent in directing an excessively large number of spectators to one end of the stadium which resulted in the fatal crush. People were injured and some died

Held: For secondary victims to succeed in a claim for psychiatric harm they must meet the following criteria:

  1. A close tie of love and affection to a primary victim
  2. Witness the event with their own unaided senses
  3. Proximity to the event or its immediate aftermath
  4. The psychiatric injury must be caused by a shocking event
77
Q

Hale v London Underground [1993]

A

Facts: Some workmen were digging a trench in a pavement. They had nothing to fence of the trench so they left a shovel and pick at one end and a punner at the other end to warn pedestrians. The claimant, a blind man, tripped on the punner and fell hitting his head. As a result of the fall he became deaf. The defendant argued they had done all that was necessary to warn an ordinary person of the danger and there was no need to take extra precautions for blind persons as it was not foreseeable that a blind person would be walking unaided down that street

Held: The defendant was in breach of duty. It was foreseeable that a blind person might walk down the street and they should be given appropriate protection

78
Q

McFarlane v EE Caledonia [1994]

A

Facts: The claimant worked on the Piper Alpha but was not on it when the fire broke out. At this time he was on an accommodation vessel that was anchored close by. The vessel was an emergency vehicle and went to provide assistance. The claimant was on board and brought an action claiming he suffered psychiatric injury. He claimed that he feared for his life and had also witnessed men in distress, on fire and jumping into the sea. He was never actually in danger. No physical damage to the vessel was sustained. No personal injuries resulted and no other member of the vessel experienced psychiatric injury

Held: No duty of care was owed. It was not reasonably foreseeable that a man of ordinary fortitude and phlegm would be so affected by what he saw

79
Q

Brice v Brown [1984]

A

Facts: Brice had suffered from a hysterical personality disorder since childhood. Due to D’s negligence as a driver he caused an accident in which C’s daughter suffered injury. This had a detrimental effect on P’s mental stability, leaving her in need of constant supervision. C brought an action against D for the psychiatric damage caused as a result of witnessing her daughter’s injuries.

Held: So long as nervous shock was foreseeable, which it was, the extent of the damage should not bar a claim for this

Law revision (16 decks)

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