Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law -Tort > Negligence 1 > Flashcards

Negligence 1 Flashcards

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

what is Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle and what case is it found in

A
  • Donohue v Stevonson
  • “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”
  • also mentions ‘the notion of proximity’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is reasonable foreseeability and what case is it found in

A
  • British Virgin Islands v Hartwell: The concept of reasonable
  • how probable something is ranging from (i) the highly probable to (ii) the possible but highly improbable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

In what case is Lord Bridge’s Three Duty of Care-Related Considerations

A
  • Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what are the 3 considerations in caparo

A
  • reasonable foreseeability of harm.
  • a relationship of proximity.
  • ‘the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope’.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what is Lord Reed’s Approach in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

A
  • focus on ‘precedents’ and ‘established principles’

- novel cases should develop incrementally

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

what are the relevant considerations when there has been a breach of duty and the cases (7)

A
  1. The reasonable person standard (Muir).
  2. The probability of harm (Bolton)
  3. The gravity of harm (Paris).
  4. The cost of precautions (Latimer)
  5. D’s purposes (Watt)
  6. D’s resources (Herrington)
  7. balancing competing interests
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what case discusses the pursuit of justice when considering breach of duty and what do they say

A
  • In Glasgow Corporation v Muir ‘All that a person can be bound to foresee are the reasonable and probable consequences of the failure to take care’ (per Lord Thankerton).’
  • Balancing C’s interest in security and D’s interest in freedom of action.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what does Walker v Northumberland state about Occupational Stress

A
  • Employers are under a duty to provide their employees with a reasonably safe system of work.
  • Employers must take reasonable steps to protect their employees from reasonably foreseeable risks in the workplace.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what should judges consider in Hatton v Sutherland when considering occupation stress

A

was harm reasonably foreseeable?

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

what is corrective justice

A

providing redress for wrongfully inflicted harm.

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

what is stated in Bolam v Friern Hospital management Committee about medicine and breech of duty

A
  • ‘A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he [or she] has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men [or women] skilled in that art’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what is Factual Causation + case

A
  • apply the ‘but-for’ test.

- Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee

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

what is legal causation + case

A
  • Negligence lawyers and judges search for the ‘real’, or ‘substantial’ or ‘direct’, or ‘effective’ cause(s) of a harmful outcome
  • Stapley v Gypsum Mines
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is the remoteness question? and case?

A
  • The remoteness question: at what point should we ‘decline[ ] to trace a sequence of [harmful] events beyond a certain point?’
  • Palsgraf v Long Island Railway Co
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what is the test for Novus Actus Interveniens (a break in the chain of causation) and where is it from?

A
  • ‘a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events’ and breaks ‘the chain of causation’
  • The Oropesa per lord Wright
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what does Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd say third-party conduct must be?

A
  • ‘very likely to happen’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what does McGhee say about proof of causation

A
  • C must show that D (i) breached the duty owed and (ii) materially increased the risk to which C was exposed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what case discusses road traffic accident for proof of causation

A
  • Fitzgerald v Lane:
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what is doctrine is to be applied in asbestos cases and what case confirms this

A
  • McGhee doctrine

- Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd

20
Q

why did the courts decline claims that concerned the thickening of membrane around the lungs (following exposure to asbestos) (plural plaques)

A
  • The plaques did not constitute actionable physical injury.
  • Risk of subsequent injury insufficient to ground a claim.
  • Psychiatric injury resulting from fear that disease may develop insufficient to ground a claim.
21
Q

what 3 consideration were discussed in Williams v University of Birmingham in university for causation

A
  1. level of knowledge should they have had about the risks posed by the relevant quantity of asbestos?
  2. with this knowledge, should the harm it have been reasonably foreseeable
  3. were there reasonable steps that they ought to have taken in the light of reasonably foreseeable risk (which it had failed to take)?
22
Q

what is Probabilistic evidence?

A
  • relevant to non-traumatic injuries
23
Q

is Cancerphobia treated as a form of compensable mental injury.

A
  • yes
24
Q

what case sets out the Reasonable Foreseeability Test for remoteness

A
  • In The Wagon Mound
25
Q

case example of the the Scope Rule

A
  • Ryan v New York Central Railway (New York fire rule)
  • Where D carelessly allows fire to spread from his or her property, liability does not extend beyond the first adjoining house
26
Q

In what case The Eggshell Skull Principle Applied

A
  • Sayers v Perrin
27
Q

case stating that suicide is not reasonable foreseeable and why?

A
  • Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd

- not a voluntary, informed decision

28
Q

test and case for the defence of illegality

A
  • To run this defence, D must establish a causal connection between (i) C’s wrongful conduct and (ii) the harm suffered by C
  • National Coal Board v England
29
Q

what are the Two Conceptions of the Illegality Defence and the cases

A
  1. The defence is based on considerations of public policy (Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police)
  2. C’s participation in criminality or wrongdoing makes it impossible for judges to specify a standard of care. Jackson v Harrison (Australian High Court).
30
Q

case for Joint Illegal Activity

A
  • Pitts v Hunt
31
Q

What were the 3 considerations in Patel relevant to illegality

A

(i) ‘the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed’;
(ii) ‘public policies which may be rendered ineffective or less effective by denial of the claim’;
(iii) application of the law with ‘a due sense of proportionality’ (per Lord Toulson).

32
Q

what two aspects are needed for Consent + cases

A
  • Voluntary agreement: C must voluntarily agree to run the relevant risk(s): Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation.
  • Knowledge: C must have full knowledge of the relevant risk(s): Wooldridge v Sumner.
33
Q

what case states that the test of knowledge is subjective?

A
  • Smith v Austin Lifts.
34
Q

what is constructive knowledge and is it enough for the defence of consent + case?

A
  • what C ought reasonably to have known
  • it is not a sufficient basis on which to invoke the defence
  • Dixon v King.
35
Q

what does the Road Traffic Act 1988 say about consent

A
  • Section 149(3): invalidates any agreement to restrict a driver’s liability to a passenger where the driver is required to be insured.
  • Section 149(3): the fact that a passenger has ‘willingly accepted’ the risk of negligence does not negative liability on the part of the driver.
36
Q

in what case does Lord Reid distinguishes between (careless collaboration and deliberate disobedience.

A
  • ICI v Shatwell
37
Q

what is Vicarious Liability?

A
  • A form of secondary liability – imposed on one person for the tort of another (eg: emplyer)
38
Q

what is stated about consent and Sporting Activities and in what case

A
  • Consent rarely yields a defence where d’s conduct goes beyond the normal rules of the game: Gleghorn v Oldham
39
Q

what is stated about consent and rescuers and in what case

A
  • When C suffers harm while seeking to rescue A, and A has been put in danger as a result of D’s carelessness, D may try to: (i) run the defence of consent and/or (ii) argue that C’s intervention breaks the causal chain
  • Baker v T.E. Hopkins
40
Q

what is contributary negligence and what Act is it found in?

A
  • partial defence
  • Where C’s ‘damage’ arises partly from his or her own ‘fault’ and partly from D’s ‘fault’, courts are required to apportion responsibility for the losses
  • Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, section 1(1)
41
Q

what standard is applied to contributary negligence

A
  • The reasonable person standard
42
Q

what needs to be stablished for contributary negligence + a case

A
  • D must establish (i) ‘fault’ on C’s part (applying the reasonable person standard) and (ii) factual and legal causation.
  • Froom v Butcher
43
Q

can contributary negligence be used against children + case?

A
  • yes

- Morales v Ecclestone

44
Q

what does Jones v Boyce say about contributary negligence

A
  • the agony must exist in the moment
45
Q

what do s1(1) and s2(1) of The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 say?

A
  • Section 1(1): ‘[A]ny person liable in respect of any damage … may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage’.
  • Section 2(1): decisions on the amount of contribution should be ‘just and equitable’.

Law -Tort (6 decks)

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