Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Ocr law > Negligence > Flashcards

Negligence Flashcards

1
Q

(negligence) 1. D owed C a duty of care

A

Pre existing (robinson)

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

(negligence) Driver/road user

A

Nettleship

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

(Negligence) doctor/patient

A

Whitehouse V jordon

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

(negligence) Sportsman/sportsman

A

condon v basi

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

(negligence) Employer/employee

A

Walker v northumberland cc

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

(negligence) Police/public

A

Robinson v chief constable of west yorkshire police

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

(negligence) lawyer/patient

A

hall v simmons

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

(negligence) public body/public

A

clunis v camden and islington

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

(negligence) judiciary/public

A

sirrors v moore

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

(negligence) fire brigade/public

A

capital & counties v hampshire cc

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

What is the first part of the Caparo test in Caparo v Dickman?

A

Harm/injury was reasonably foreseeable

This means a reasonable man would have foreseen harm, as established in Kent v Griffiths.

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

What does the second part of the Caparo test assess?

A

Proximity between C and D: time, space or relationship

This was highlighted in the case of Bourhill v Young.

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

What is evaluated in the third part of the Caparo test?

A

Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

This is demonstrated in Mulcahy v MOD, considering public policy reasons.

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

What is the main question to conclude after applying the Caparo test?

A

Is there a duty?

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

(2) test- What must be proven regarding breach of duty in tort law?

A

D owed C a duty of care and D breached that duty.

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

What is the reasonable man test in tort law?

A

An ordinary and competent person acts the same as D/did not do

This principle is derived from Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks.

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

What type of reasonable person is considered in Wells v Cooper?

A

Ordinary person.

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

According to Mullins v Richards, what standard is applied for a reasonable child?

A

Reasonable child.

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

What standard applies to professionals as established in Bolam v Friern Hospital?

A

Reasonable professional.

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

What principle is established in Nettleship v Weston regarding inexperience?

A

No allowances made for inexperience.

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

What risk factor considers the likelihood of harm?

A

Likelihood of Harm/size of risk

This is illustrated in Bolton v Stone.

22
Q

Which case highlights the characteristics of C as a risk factor?

A

Paris v Stepney.

23
Q

What does Latimer v AEC evaluate in terms of risk factors?

A

Cost of practical precautions.

24
Q

What does Watts v Herts CC assess regarding risk factors?

A

Social utility/benefit.

25
Q

What is the concluding question after assessing breach of duty?

A

Is there a breach?

26
Q

What is the definition of factual causation in tort law?

A

‘but for’ test

Established in Barnett v Chelsea Hospital

27
Q

What is novus actus interveniens?

A

An intervening act that breaks the chain of causation

Examples include acts of the claimant, acts of nature, or acts of third parties

28
Q

What is the significance of the case McKew v Holland?

A

Illustrates the act of the claimant as a potential novus actus interveniens

29
Q

What does the case Carslogie Steamship v RNG illustrate?

A

An act of nature as a potential novus actus interveniens

30
Q

What does Knightly v Johns illustrate in terms of novus actus interveniens?

A

An act of a third party as a potential novus actus interveniens

31
Q

What is the definition of legal causation in tort law?

A

Damage is reasonably foreseeable and not too remote

Addressed in The Wagon Mound No 1

32
Q

What is the principle of remoteness of damage?

A

Damage must be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions

33
Q

In which case was it established that type of damage can lead to liability even if not foreseeable?

A

Bradford v Robinson Rentals

34
Q

What does Hughes v Lord Advocate illustrate regarding causation?

A

Sequence of events can lead to liability even if harm was not foreseeable

35
Q

What is the egg-shell skull rule?

A

Defendant is liable for the full extent of the injury caused, even if the claimant had a pre-existing vulnerability

Established in Smith v Leech Brain

36
Q

What is the complete defense of consent in tort law?

A

Volenti: claimant knows the risk and consents to it

Illustrated in Morris v Murray

37
Q

When is consent not considered freely given?

A

When the claimant has little choice or feels a moral obligation

Illustrated in Smith v Baker and Haynes v Harwood

38
Q

What is contributory negligence?

A

Partial defense where the claimant’s own behavior has contributed to their loss

Governed by The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence Act) 1945

39
Q

What must be established for contributory negligence to apply?

A

Claimant’s behavior fell below the standard expected of a reasonable person

40
Q

What is illustrated by Brannon v Airtours regarding contributory negligence?

A

Claimant contributed to the accident

41
Q

What does Froom v Butcher illustrate about contributory negligence?

A

Claimant made their injuries worse

42
Q

What are special damages in tort law?

A

Damages that can be precisely calculated

Example: financial loss or property damage from the accident until trial

43
Q

What are general damages in tort law?

A

Damages that cannot be precisely calculated

Includes pain & suffering, loss of amenity, bereavement

44
Q

What is pecuniary loss?

A

Future loss of earnings and medical expenses

45
Q

What is non-pecuniary loss?

A

Pain & suffering, loss of amenity, bereavement

46
Q

What guidelines are used for calculating damages?

A

JSB guidelines and the tariff system set out in Kemn & Kemp

47
Q

Decide which damages are available to C - APPLICATION to scenario

A
48
Q

C is under duty to mitigate losses (Motorways Ltd v Alwahbi)

A
49
Q

Conclude: C will/ will not receive damages?

A
50
Q

The damages will be paid to the C in either a lump sum or a structured

A
51
Q

settlement

A

The Damages Act 1996.

52
Q

The C does/ does not have claim? APPLICATION to scenario

A

Ocr law (2 decks)

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