Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort > Liability in negligence > Flashcards

Liability in negligence Flashcards

Personal injury and damage to property

1
Q

Caparo v Dickman (1990) established what test?

A

The three part test

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

What are the three parts to the three-part test established in Caparo v Dickman (1990)?

A

1) Was damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?
2) Proximity of relationship
3) Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

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

What case established the three-part test?

A

Caparo v Dickman (1990)

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

What are the facts of Caparo v Dickman (1990)

A

The C company wanted to take over another company and looked at the statutory accounts and based on that made the purchase but then discovered the detailed books revealed a loss.

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

Definition of the three-part test

A

To show who is owed a duty of care in negligence. All three parts must be satisfied.

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

What is the case for damage or harm reasonably foreseeable?

A

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

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

What principle did Kent v Griffiths (2000) establish?

A

Damage or harm reasonably foreseeable

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

The facts of Kent v Griffiths (2000)

A

An ambulance did not arrive to receive C in a reasonable time-it was reasonably foreseeable that C would suffer further injury if ambulance was late.

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

What is the case for proximity of relationship in which a relationship was not established and therefore no duty of care was owed?

A

Bourhill v Young (1943)

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

What principle does the case of Bourhill v Young (1943) support?

A

Proximity of relationship-(no duty of care was owed in this case-insufficient proximity)

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

What principle does the case of McLoughlin v O’Brien (1982) support?

A

Proximity of relationship-(Duty of care was owed in this case)

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

What case supports the principle of proximity of relationship in which the a duty of care was owed?

A

McLoughlin v O’Brien (1982)

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

What are the facts of Bourhill v Young (1943)

A

Woman witnessed motorbike accident of a stranger and gave birth to a stillborn from shock-no proximity of relationship and therefore no duty of care owed.

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

What are the facts of McLoughlin v O’Brien (1982)

A

Claimant’s husband and children involved in road accident and she suffered psychological injury when witnessing their treatment-proximity of relationship was established and duty of care was found.

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

What case supports the principle of fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty?

A

Hill v CC of West Yorkshire (1990)

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

What principle does the case of Hill v CC of West Yorkshire (1990) support?

A

Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.

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

What are the facts of Hill v CC West Yorkshire (1990)

A

C was a relative of Yorkshire ripper’s last victim and tried to sue for damages but was unsuccessful-not fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty.

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

Definition of the reasonable person

A

Considered to be the ordinary person in the street or doing a task.

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

Professionals are judged by the standard of the profession as a whole. What is the case to illustrate this?

A

Bolam v FB Hospital (1957)

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

What are the facts for Bolam v FB Hospital (1957) and what principle did it establish?

A

Facts: C was suffering mental illness and given electric shock therapy. C was not given muscle relaxants.
1 SOP was to use relaxants in every procedure. The other SOP was that drugs should be used only if needed.
Principle: That professionals are judged by the standard of their profession as a whole.

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

Learners are judged by the standard of the competent, more experienced person. What is the example case for this principle?

A

Nettleship v Weston (1971)

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

What principle did Nettleship v Wetson (1971) establish?

A

That learners are judged by the standard of the competent more experienced person.

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

What are the facts of the case of Nettleship v Weston (1971)?

A

Student on driving lesson made error in driving and injured her instructor (the claimant).

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

Children and young people are judged by the standard of someone at their age-what is the example case for this principle?

A

Mullin v Richards (1998)

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

What are the facts of Mullin v Richards (1998)

A

Two 15 year olds play fighting with plastic rulers which broke and fragments entered claimant’s eye. D did not owe duty of care.

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

What principle did the case of Mullin v Richards (1998) establish?

A

That children and young people are judged by the standard of someone at their age.

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

Name 5 risk factors that may be considered to lower or raise the standard of care.

A

1) Special characteristics? (Paris v Stepney Borough Council 1951)
2) Size of the risk? (Bolton v Stone) (Haley v London Electric)
3) Have all appropriate precautions been taken? (Latimer v AEC Ltd 1953)
4) Unknown risks? Roe v Minister of Health (1954)
5) Public benefit to taking the risk? (Watt v Hertfordshire County Council 1954)

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

What case established the principle of special characteristics when determining the standard of care?

A

Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What are the facts of the Paris v Stepney Borough Council (1951) case and what principle did it establish?

A

Facts: C had special characteristics-being blind in one eye-employers did not provide eye-pro. Defendants fund to owe duty of care.
Principle: Does the claimant have special characteristics that might affect the standard of care owed?

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

What two cases established the principle of ‘what is the size of the risk?’ when determining the standard of care?

A

1) Bolton v Stone (1951)-Cricket ball hits passer-by.

2) Haley v London Electricity Board (1965)-Blind person falls in trench made by D.

31
Q

What are the facts of the Bolton v Stone (1951) case and what principle did it establish in determining the standard of care owed?

A

Facts: Cricket ball hits passer by-however there was a low risk of injury and the Cricket Club did everything it could to prevent injury-no duty of care owed.
Principle: What is the size of the risk?

32
Q

What are the facts of the Haley v London Electricity Board (1965) and what principle did it establish with regards to the standard of care owed?

A

Facts: Blind person falls in trench made by workers-risk should have been realised as blind people frequent the area.
Principle: What is the size of the risk?

33
Q

What case established the principle of ‘have all appropriate precautions been taken?’ with regards to the standard of care owed?

A

Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953)

34
Q

What are the facts of the Latimer v AEC Ltd (1953) case and what principle did it establish regarding the standard of care?

A

Facts: Slippery factory floor was cleaned with sawdust-work continued-worker slipped-employers not liable because the only other option was closure of factory.
Principle: Have all appropriate precautions been taken?

35
Q

What case established the principle of ‘were the risks known about at the time of the accident?’ regarding the standard of care owed?

A

Roe v Minister of Health (1954)

36
Q

What are the facts of the Roe v Minister of Health (1954) case and what principle does it establish regarding the standard of care owed?

A

Facts: It was common practice to soak anaesthetic tubes in cleaner. Tubes developed micro cracks that contaminated anaesthetic-patient injured-hospital not liable as risk unknown at the time.
Principle: Were the risks known about at the time of the accident?

37
Q

What two cases established the principle of ‘is there a public benefit to taking the risk?’ regarding the standard of care owed?

A

1) Watt v Hertfordshire County Council (1954)-Fireman injured using only available equipment.
2) Day v High Performance Sports (2003)-Climber who was rescued inappropriately due to an emergency.

38
Q

The definition of damage (not damages).

A

Has the defendant’s breach of duty led to the injury or property damage suffered by the claimant?

39
Q

What are the two parts that make up damage (not damages)?

A

1) Factual

2) Remoteness of damage

40
Q

The definition of causation.

A

A link between the D’s act or omission and the injury, loss or damage caused to C.

41
Q

What case demonstrates the principle of ‘factual causation’ with regards to ‘damage’?

A

Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969)

42
Q

What principle does the case of Barnett v Chelsea Hospital (1969) demonstrate and what were the facts?

A

Principle: Factual causation.
Facts: 3 people reported to hospital after drinking tea. Doctor refused to see them and referred to own GP’s. One man died from arsenic poisoning-it was decided Doctor’s act did not cause the death as arsenic was already in the system.

43
Q

What principle did the case of The Wagon Mound (1961) establish and what were the facts?

A

Principle: Remoteness of damage
Facts: Oil spill seeped into a wharf where welding being carried out-caught fire and burned wharf. No foreseeability of fire damage.

44
Q

What case established the principle of ‘remoteness of damage’ with regards to ‘damage’?

A

The Wagon Mound (1961)

45
Q

What is a ‘novus actus interveniens’?

A

An act to break the chain of causation.

46
Q

What is the definition of ‘reasonably foreseeable’?

A

a result such as an injury or damage which a reasonable person could foresee being a result of their act or omission.

47
Q

What are the three leading cases for ‘foreseeability’ with regards to ‘damage’?

A

1) Hughes v Lord Advocate (1963)-Consequence foreseeable even if cause of injury is not.
2) Bradford v Robinson rentals (1967)-Consequence foreseeable, even if more severe.
3) Doughty v Turner Asbestos (1964)-Consequence not known so injury not foreseeable

48
Q

What is the leading case for the ‘eggshell skull rule’ A.K.A. ‘take your victim as you find them’ with regards to ‘damage’?

A

Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962)

49
Q

What are the facts of the Smith v Leech Brain and Co. (1962) case and what principle did it establish?

A

Facts: Claimants husband had pre-cancerous condition and developed cancer as a result of a foreseeable burn caused by the defendant.
Principle: ‘Eggshell skull rule’ A.K.A. ‘tale your victim as you find him’.

50
Q

What is the rule of ‘res ipsa loquitor’?

A

‘The thing speaks for itself’

51
Q

What three aspects does the claimant have to show to use the rule of ‘res ipsa loquitor’?

A

1) Defendant was in control of the situation.
2) The accident would not have happened unless someone was negligent.
3) No other explanation for the injury.

52
Q

What is the supporting case for ‘res ipsa loquitor’?

A

Scott v London and St. Katherine Docks (1865)

53
Q

What are the facts of the Scott v London and St Katherine Docks (1865) and what rule does it support?

A

Rule: ‘res ipsa loquitor’
Facts: C injured by falling bags from warehouse owned by D. C did not know circumstances but 1) D controlled the warehouse 2) sacks must have fallen negligently 3) no explanation for sacks to fall.
in the absence of any proof otherwise, D was found to be liable.

54
Q

Which two acts place restrictions on the use of consent as a defence?

A

s149 Road Traffic Act (1988)

Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977)-business premises

55
Q

What does the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) place restrictions on regarding liability in negligence?

A

Businesses from limiting liability when injury occurs on business premises.

56
Q

Businesses from limiting liability when injury occurs on business premises.

Which act provides restricts this?

A

Unfair Contracts Term Act (1977)

57
Q

Which act puts restrictions on the use of consent as a defence to a negligence claim in the event of a road traffic accident?

A

Road Traffic Act (1988)

58
Q

What case established the neighbour principle?

A

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Facts: Ginger beer bottle with slug in. Product manufacturer liable.

59
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

A

Significance: established the ‘neighbour principle’.

Facts: Ginger beer bottle with slug in. Product manufacturer liable.

60
Q

What is meant by ‘volenti non fit unjuria’?

A

It is a full defence when the claimant voluntarily accepts a risk.

61
Q

It is a full defence when the claimant voluntarily accepts a risk.

What is this referring to?

A

volenti non fit injuria

62
Q

What case is an example of volenti succeeding?

A

ICI Ltd. v Shatwell (1965)

Facts: C and brother were quarry workers and C followed brother’s advice about ignoring the employer’s instructions on handling detonators-when he was injured the D succeeded in a defence of volenti as C had assumed the risk of injury.

63
Q

ICI Ltd.v Shatwell (1965)

A

An example of a successful defence of volenti.

Facts: C and brother were quarry workers and C followed brother’s advice about ignoring the employer’s instructions on handling detonators-when he was injured the D succeeded in a defence of volenti as C had assumed the risk of injury.

64
Q

What test decides ‘factual causation’?

A

The ‘but for’ test

65
Q

What case gave the definition of negligence?

A

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

Facts: Water works blocked fire hydrant that leaked onto C’s property.

66
Q

Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856)

A

Gives the definition of negligence.

Facts: Water works blocked fire hydrant that leaked onto C’s property.

67
Q

What case established the ‘neighbour principle’?

A

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Facts: The Paisley Snail-snail in a bottle that was bought for a woman by a friend.

68
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

A

‘Neighbour principle’

Facts: The Paisley Snail-snail in a bottle that was bought for a woman by a friend.

69
Q

What replaced the ‘neighbour principle’?

A

The three part test from Caparo v Dickman (1990)

70
Q

The three part test replaced which legal principle?

A

The neighbour principle.

71
Q

The standard of care is objective or subjective?

A

Objective

That of the reasonable person.

72
Q

The reasonable person is subjective or objective?

A

Objective

73
Q

What is the objective test for deciding if D broke the standard of care?

A

The reasonable person.

Tort (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions