Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

tort > negligence remoteness > Flashcards

negligence remoteness Flashcards

1
Q

what is the central concern of remoteness

A

The extent of liability- the extent of recoverable of loss

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

what are the 3 rationals for the remoteness principle

A
  • Balancing C’s interest in security and D’s freedom of action;
  • not discouraging enterprise by tilting the law too far towards C;
  • not imposing disproportionate burdens on D
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what did Andrews J say in Palsgraf about remoteness

A

that it is a ‘matter of practical politics’

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

what does Janet O’ Sullivan say on remoteness (3)

A
  • she mixes up legal causation and remoteness
  • her approach is reminiscent of US tort lawyers (who do the same thing when they invoke the doctrine of ‘proximate cause’).
  • try to keep legal causation and remoteness distinct from one another
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

idea of a scope rule

New York fire rule case

A

Ryan v New York Central Railway

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

what is the a scope rule in New York fire case

A

Where D carelessly allows fire to spread from his or her property, liability does not extend beyond the first adjoining house

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

what test was considered the right test for remoteness in Wagon Mound (No 1)

A

the reasonable foreseeability test

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

what did Viscount Simonds say about the RF test in Wagon Mound (No 1)

(2)

A
  • this test justly accommodates security and freedom of action
  • this test confers wide discretion on judges
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what was Viscount Simonds doing in Wagon Mound

A

balancing as seen as in Walker v Northumberland CC

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

what does Fleming say about RF and judicial discretion (2)

A
  • ‘Foreseeability is a criterion with a wide margin of tolerance, largely influenced by individual experience and imagination’
  • judges are able to attach importance to the features of a case that strike them as salient
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate outcome (2)

A
  • The precise sequence of events does not have to be foreseeable. (Wagon Mound case was endorsed here)
  • Harm must be of a reasonably foreseeable type. this confers discretion to judges
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what case did judges apply the approach from Hughes v Lord Advocate

A

Hines v Morrow and in United Novelty Co v Daniels

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

Jolley v Sutton LBC outcome (3)

A
  • emphasis on the ‘scope’ of the risk (Lord Hoffman)
  • the rotten condition of the boat had a significance beyond the particular danger it created
  • harm was of a reasonably foreseeable type
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is the egg shell skull principle

A

C has an eggshell skull (or other congenital weakness) and D is, hence, liable for unforeseeable loss(es).

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

Sayers v Perrin outcome

A

electric shock triggers (unforeseeable) polio; D held liable

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

Pigney v Pointers Transport Services outcome

A

carelessness leads to unforeseeable melancholia and suicide; D held liable. (Applying the eggshell skull principle, the losses were recoverable, despite being beyond the threshold of reasonable foreseeability).

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

Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd outcome

A
  • Suicide was the result of the breach and didn’t fall out of the scope of defendant’s duty.
  • Mr Corr’s suicide was not a voluntary, informed decision’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what is the rationale for the nous acts interveniens doctrine as seen in Corrective v IBC Vehicles Ltd

A

fairness

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

what test was set out in Re Polemis

A

the direct consequences test

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

Re Polemis & Furness Withy & Co- result

A

The total loss of the ship is a direct consequence of carelessness. In the absence of carelessness, this result would not have occurred

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

what did Viscount Simonds say about Re Polemis in Wagon Mound (No 1)

A

-it does not seem constant with the ideas of justice and morality however slight trivial, that an actor should be liable for all consequence, so long as they can be said to be ‘direct’

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

criticisms of applying Re Polemis for egg shell skull principle (2)

A
  • you may get a harsher outcome as ‘direct consequence’ encourages the aggressive trace in the consequences,
  • as a result, it loses sight of, or perhaps fails to bring in balance the idea of a ‘just accommodation’ of competing concerns; security and freedom of action.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

what type of justice is seen in the egg shell skull principle when applied in Re Polemis

A

distributive justice

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

what does Leon Green say about remoteness/ egg shell skull

A

No formula can be devised that will yield uncontroversial answers to all proximate cause [US doctrine] or remoteness questions

-same applies to remoteness- it is not straightforward to apply

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

defences

what must D’s show

A

-That they can meet the requirements of any defence (e.g. consent) on which they seek to rely

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

defences

what must D’s have to prove- which case highlights this

A

D’s have to prove on the balance of probabilities that they can meet the relevant requirements

(Wakelin v London and South Western Railway)

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

illegality

what is this

A

-moral and legal wrongdoing

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

illegality

what does the the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio means

A

the illegal or wrongful nature of C’s conduct may bar his or her claim in tort.

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

roots of the illegality defence- which case was this first seen in

A

Holman v Johnson

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

illegality

Holman v Johnson- outcome

A

the principle of public policy is this: ex dolo malo oritur actio. no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or illegal act’.

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

illegality

how would a D run this defence

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).

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

case for how a D would run the illegality defence

A

National Coal Board v England

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

what does Dillon LJ say in Pitts v Hunt about illegality

A

‘the fact that a plaintiff was engaged in illegal activity which brought about his injury does not automatically bring it about that his claim for damages’

-You can evoke the illegality defence with some prospect of it working, but judges exercise their discretion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

what are the 2 conceptions of the illegality defence

A

1) The defence is based on considerations of public policy: e.g., compensating C would be ‘shocking to the public conscience’ or send out an undesirable signal to criminals and other wrongdoers (Kirkham v Chief Constable)
2) C’s 2. C’s participation in criminality or wrongdoing makes it impossible for judges to specify a standard of care. (Jackson v Harrison)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

joint illegal activity- Pitts v Hunt outcome (2)

A

Ex turpi causa and public policy did operate to preclude the imposition of a duty of care.

To compensate C would be at odds with Parliament’s intentions in enacting road traffic legislation (concerned with safety).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Refill v Newbury outcome - compare to Pitts

A
  • damages can be reduced if C contributed to negligence

- C can sue his victim (Revill) but not his accomplice (Pitts)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority- what 2 considerations were relevant here

and what is the public policy here

A

1) illegality
2) C knew or could be presumed to know that his conduct was wrongful.

public policy: deterring criminal acts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd outcome

A

-illegality defence applied]-Gray was mentally ill and killed someone- wanted to recover compensation for loss of earnings

39
Q

Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority- facts

A
  • C mentally ill, in a mental hospital then charged with very little support
  • he then killed Victim
  • C sues in negligence-
  • D able to rely on illegality defence
40
Q

Gray v Thames Trains Ltd - which case did judges use to find support for their decision

A

Canadian case: Hall v Hebert

-identified consistency as the sole justification for the illegality defence- which was apparent in Gray

41
Q

what principle from Gray iis seen as a justification for the illegality principle

A

the consistency principle

42
Q

what are the 5 justifications for the illegality defence

A
  • deterrence (Clunis)
  • retribution (Pitts)
  • Maintaining the integrity of the legal system (Weir- academic)
  • Outlawry (C is effectively put beyond the law’s protection- Harvey (academic))
  • Consistency (Gray)
43
Q

illegality and immorality

2 cases

A
  • Nayyar v Denton Wilde Sapte

- Safeway Stores Ltd v Twigger

44
Q

Nayyar v Denton Wilde Sapte

outcome

A

The principle of ex turpi causa can extend to immoral as well as illegal acts and may apply to improper conduct evincing serious moral turpitude’ (Hamblen J)

45
Q

Safeway Stores Ltd v Twigger outcome

A

Flaux J- ‘the maxim ex turpi causa ‘is not limited to criminal acts’

-‘There must be an element of moral turpitude or moral reprehensibility involved’.

(grave wrongdoing)

46
Q

James Goudkamp on ex turpi causa (2)

A
  • ‘The decisions in Nayyar and Safeway Stores have taken tort law in the wrong direction insofar as the maxim ex turpi causa is concerned’
  • ‘the maxim stands out as particularly problematic in these respects’
47
Q

Henderson v Dorset Health University NHS Foundation Trust outcome

A

D made successful use of the defence of illegality; the Supreme Court declined to depart from the House of Lords’ decision in Gray v Thames Trains and concluded that Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority should not be overruled.

48
Q

in Henderson, Patel v Mirza was used.

what are the 3 considerations highlighted in Patel for the illegality defence

A

1) the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed’; (the wrongful conduct under consideration)
2) public policies which may be rendered ineffective or less effective by denial of the claim’
3) application of the law with ‘a due sense of proportionality’ (per Lord Toulson). (also applied in Stoffel and Co v Grondona)

49
Q

Henderson

What did Janet O’Sullivan say about illegality in the Supreme Court (2)

A
  • in a novel case the court will move by incremental analogy from existing precedent, aided by Patel’s trio of considerations’
  • If you’re looking at an illegality case, look first at relevant authority (precedent). If the case is novel, the court has to think about an incremental extension of the illegality defence, it has to think about developing the law on the basis of analogy, and that’s when the three considerations come in.
50
Q

consent

what is this about

A

personal responsibility- D bares burden of proof

51
Q

consent

how much D rely on this defence (2)

A
  • Voluntary agreement: in order for D to rely on this defence, C must voluntarily agree to run the relevant risk(s): Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation
  • knowledge: In order for D to rely on this defence, C must have full knowledge of the relevant risk(s): Wooldridge v Sumner
52
Q

consent

voluntary agreement case

A

Bowater v Rowley Regis Corporation

53
Q

consent

knowledge case

A

Wooldridge v Sumner

54
Q

consent

what type of test is the knowledge test

A
  • subjective- Smith v Austin Lifts

- constructive knowledge: Dixon v King

55
Q

consent

what type of knowledge is not sufficient for consent

A

constructive knowledge is not a sufficient basis on which to invoke the defence: Dixon v King.

56
Q

the limited scope of the consent defence

case

A

Nettleship v Weston

57
Q

the limited scope of the consent defence

Nettleship v Weston- what does Lord Denning say about the scope of consent

A
  • the defence has been severely limited

- ‘courts adhere to the view that in employment cases the defence should be applied “with extreme caution”

58
Q

Consent and the Road Traffic Act 1988

what does S 149(3) say about consent

A
  • invalidates any agreement to restrict a driver’s liability to a passenger where the driver is required to be insured
  • the fact that a passenger has ‘willingly accepted’ the risk of negligence does not negative liability on the part of the driver. (Consent cannot be used here)
59
Q

consent

Morris v Murray outcome

A
  • loss left to where it fell. Emphasis on Cs personal responsibility
  • no equivalent section of S149(3) RTA 1988
60
Q

consent and sporting activities

does consent yield a defence for sporting activities

A

Consent rarely yields a defence where d’s conduct goes beyond the normal rules of the game:

Gleghorn v Oldham

61
Q

consent and sporting activities

2 cases

A
  • Gleghorn v Oldham

- Simms v Leigh Rugby League Football Club

62
Q

consent and sporting activities

Simms v Leigh Rugby League Football Club outcome

A

Held to have assented to run relevant risk(s).

63
Q

consent and sporting activities

case for the idea that consent rarely yields a defence where D’s conduct goes beyond the normal rules of the fame

A

Gleghorn v Oldham

64
Q

consent and rescuers

when may D try to run the defence of consent or argue that C’s intervention breaks the causal chain

A

When C suffers harm while seeking to rescue A, and A has been put in danger as a result of D’s carelessness,

65
Q

Baker v T.E Hopkins outcome

A

Morris LJ: ‘Those who put men in peril can hardly be heard to say that the rescue attempt was not caused by the creation of the peril’.

66
Q

ICI v Shatwell outcome

A
  • C sues employer (relying on doctrine of vicarious liability)
  • action fails, C consented to run relevant risks
67
Q

what does Lord Reid distinguish between in ICI v Shatwell (2)

A
  • Careless collaboration

- deliberate disobedience

68
Q

what is the policy argument in Baker v T.E Hopkins

A

Through carelessness, the D can create a situation that draws someone acting reasonably into that situation (a rescuer), and when that happens judges are enthusiastic about responding positively to arguments running on the theme: the rescue breaks the causal chain and not keen on consent-based arguments

69
Q

Baker v T.E Hopkins

what case does Wilmer LJ cite- give quote

A

Cardozo J’s dictum in Wagner v International Railway Co: ‘danger invites rescue. the cry of distress is the summons of relief’.

70
Q

what does Cardozo say in Wagner v International about wrong that imperils life

A

The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperiled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer’.

71
Q

how do Hart and Honore describe the C as being under what obligation in (Baker v t.e Hopkins)

A

under a moral obligation

72
Q

what type of defence is contributory negligence

A

a partial defence

73
Q

what is contributory negligence (2)

A

-where there is multiple responsibility

0the ‘just and equitable’ apportionment of loss (judges have discretion)

74
Q

what are courts supposed to do when C’s damages arise partly due to his own fault and partly due to Ds dault

A

courts are required to apportion responsibility for the losses (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, section 1(1)).

75
Q

how does Viscount Simon describe CN in Nance

A

‘a shield against the plaintiff’s claim’

76
Q

what standard is applied to C in CN

A

a RP standard

77
Q

how can D run the claim of CN successfully- what must he show (2)

A

1) ‘fault; on Cs part (applying RP standard)

2) factual and legal causation

78
Q

CN

RP standard case

A

From v Butcher

79
Q

RP standard in CN

Capps v Miller outcome

A

failing to wear a seatbelt/ helmet- D can claim CN

80
Q

RP standard in CN

Owens v Brimmell

A

contributory negligence may be pleaded where a passenger consents to be driven by an intoxicated driver. You can’t use the defence of consent here but contributory negligence

81
Q

RP standard in CN

Gregory v Kelly

A

contributory negligence may be pleaded where C drives a vehicle he or she knows to be defective.

82
Q

CN

What did Lord Asquith hold in Stapley v Gypsum Mines about CN (3)

A

‘The question [of contributory negligence] must be determined by applying common sense to the facts of each case’

  • Exercising strong judicial discretion, but expected to deliver a just outcome
  • The consequent high-levels of uncertainty put risk-averse claimants at a disadvantage
83
Q

CN and children

Yacht v Oliver Blais outcome

A

c held not to have been contributorily negligence

84
Q

CN and children

Morales v Ecclestone outcome

A

eleven-year-old held to be 75% responsible, having run into the road and been struck by D’s vehicle

85
Q

CN

What was held in Jones v Boyce about the agony of the moment

A

‘If the plaintiff’s act resulted from a rash apprehension of danger, which did not exist .. he is not entitled to recover’

86
Q

CN

what was held in Jones v Live about personal responsibility

A

he contributed 1/5 to the accident

87
Q

CN

what was held in Pitts v Hunt

-what did Beldam LJ state

A

it was thought that judges could make a 100% deduction (for contributory negligence) in a suitable case

Beldam LJ stated that a 100% deduction was at odds with the requirement that both parties be at ‘fault’

88
Q

CN

outcome in Reeves v Metropolitan Police

A
  • HoL replaced 100% reduction with 50% deduction

- Detainee had been at fault

89
Q

CN

Corr v IBC Vehicles outcome

A
  • employer liable for suicide

- no deduction for CN

90
Q

state the CN act

A

The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978: Section 1(1) and section 2(1)

91
Q

what is stated in The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978: Section 1(1)

A

‘[A]ny person liable in respect of any damage … may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage’

92
Q

what is stated in The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978: Section 2 (1)

A

decisions on the amount of contribution should be ‘just and equitable’

93
Q

what are the 2 relevant considerations for CN

A

a. causal responsibility

b. degree of fault (Miraflores v George Livanos).

94
Q

what procedure do we follow if we have a faulty C and more than 1 faulty D

-what case approved this

A
  1. Address the question of contributory negligence first, and then
  2. Address the question of contribution (as between two or more defendants).

Fitzgerald v Lane

tort (13 decks)

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