Private law Sem 2 revision Flashcards
damnum injuria datum
“damage wrongfully caused.”
damnum abseque injuria
“damage without injury.”
volenti non fit injuria
“voluntary assumption of risk.”
plus quam tolerabile
“more than tolerable.”
law of delict is concerned with obligations that are
ex voluntante
ex lege
obligation by law
donoghue V Stevenson
neighbour principle
Bourhill V young
young riding motorbike crashed and died women pregnant seen accident from afar claimed she had shock - held young not liabill no forseeabile
Muir V Glasgow Corporation
group of kids were burned by tea spilling -held that the manager wasnt liabill for the unforseeable accident .
Bolton v Stone
cricket ball hit women outside her home -incident was so rare that no further precautions were needed to be made .
Page V smith
car accident where page caused the incident and smith didnt have any physical injuries but the accident made is pre existing illness worse and preventing him from work- smith was a primary victim
Novus Actus Interveniens
new intervening act
Cau
sa sine qua non
but for this event - without the phone there is no accident.
ex voluntante
voluntarily
injuria sine damnum
injury without damage
causa causans
the immediate cause - defendants actions must be the direct cause of harm
Barnett V chelsea and kensington Hosptial management committee
man visited hospital with severe stomach pain doctor told him to go home then the man died later from poisoning - no duty as he would have died anyways.
Mcwilliams V archibald
mcwilliams fell to his death when building the forth road bridge his employer never gave him safety harness which was required under law . No claim as even if he was provided with safety equipment he would not have used it.
Mctear v imperial Tobacco Ltd
Mctear smoked alot and then died of lung cancer his wife tried to sue the company for the effects of the fags as there was no significant warnings - there was no proof husband had no idea of the effects on smoking .
calculus of risk
involves balancing the likelihood and severity of potential harm against the cost and practicality of taking precautions to prevent that harm. This concept is often associated with the “reasonable person” standard.
Page V smith
There is no distinction whether psychiatric or physical injury, liability will still arise.
Hill V chief Constable of west yorkshire
Lack of proximity - student was murdered by yorkshire ripper the mother tried to sue police for them not catching the murderer before he murdered the daughter. there was no proximity to the murdered.
Brown v Rolls Royce
Brown, a Rolls Royce employee, developed dermatitis from oil exposure at work. He claimed liability due to the lack of barrier cream. The court ruled Rolls Royce was not negligent, as they had reasonable alternative precautions and didn’t need to follow industry practices if their measures were effective
Consumer Protection Act 1987
consumer needs to prove that product is defective
contributary negligence
reduces the amount of damages payable
chain of causation
the chain of causation is broken by reasonable foreseeable conduct on the part of the victim
Gregg V scott
Mr. Gregg’s doctor misdiagnosed a lump, delaying cancer treatment by 9 months. This reduced his chance of surviving for 10 years from 42% to 25%. The House of Lords held that “loss of a chance” is not recoverable in negligence claims. Liability requires proof that negligence caused the harm.
Mckillen V Barclay - curle and co Ltd
McKillen claimed damages for tuberculosis, alleging it was reactivated by a rib fracture sustained in an accident at work. The court held that causation was not proven, as there was no corroboration of expert evidence. Liability requires clear causal connection.
Hughes V lord advocate
Two boys explored an unattended manhole left by workmen, using a paraffin lamp. The lamp was dropped, causing an unforeseeable explosion that injured them. The House of Lords held that the type of harm (burns) was foreseeable, even if the specific way it occurred was not.
Defamation and Malicious Publications (scotland) Act 2021
the publications of a statement in a scientific journal is privileged if requirements are met
