Nature of liability in negligience Flashcards
What does the Human Rights Act 1998 impose on the state?
Imposes duty on state to respect and act consistently with European Convention of Human Rights
In Osman v UK (1998), who can the claimant sue directly?
The state
What is several liability?
Liability where each defendant is responsible for their own portion of damages
In Vision Golf Ltd v Weightmans (2005), what was the outcome for both firms involved?
Both firms were held liable for the claimants’ loss of land
What is joint liability?
Liability where all defendants are equally responsible for the damages
What happened in Brooke v Bool (1928)?
Both the landlord and lodger were jointly liable for the explosion caused by lighting a match
What does Section 1 of the Civil Liability Act 1978 state?
Any person liable for damage may recover a contribution from any person liable for the same damage
In Fitzgerald v Lane (1989), what percentage of blame was attributed to the claimant?
50%
What does the term ‘vicarious liability’ refer to?
Employer’s liability for the negligent acts of an employee performed in the course of employment
What is the Control Test in employment law?
A test to determine if an individual is an employee based on the level of control exerted by the employer
What case established the Business Integration Test?
Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v Macdonald and Evans (1952)
What is the Multiple Test in employment law?
A test combining various factors to determine employment status
What does the term ‘akin to employment’ mean in Cox v Ministry of Justice (2016)?
Activities performed by individuals under supervision that resemble employment responsibilities
What is the Salmond Test?
A test to determine if an employee’s actions were within the course of employment
In Poland v Parr (1927), why was the employer held vicariously liable?
Employee acted within implied authority to protect employer’s property
True or False: An employee is vicariously liable for actions taken during a private disagreement.
False
What was the outcome in Limps v London General Omnibus Co (1862)?
Driver was held liable as he acted in the course of employment despite ignoring instructions
What incident led to vicarious liability in Century Insurance v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942)?
Employee threw a lit match while unloading petrol, causing a fire
In Rose v Plenty (1976), why was the employer held liable?
Employee allowed a young boy to assist on the job, leading to an injury
What does Majrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Trust (2006) illustrate about vicarious liability?
Employers may be liable for breaches of statutory duty if fairness and justice are met
What was the finding in Beard v London General Omnibus (1900)?
Bus conductor was acting outside the course of employment
What happened in Hilton v Thomas Burton (1961)?
No vicarious liability as workers took a detour for tea and caused an accident
What was the outcome in Young v Edward Box and Co Ltd (1951)?
Employer was held liable because foreman acted within the course of employment
In Makanjuola v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis, why was there no vicarious liability?
Employee’s actions were not in the course of employment
