the law of tort negligence

Question 1

what is tort law

Answer 1

it is civil wrong

Question 1

what does civil law deal with

Answer 1

it deals with private dispute between people and organisations

Question 2

what is tort law concerned with

Answer 2

with situations where a person has suffered loss or injury, or when property has been damage

Question 3

what is a boarder term tort mean

Answer 3

“a tort occurs where there is a breach of a general duty fixed by civil law”

Question 4

what is the claimant in a tort claim

Answer 4

it is the person/organisation bringing the civil claim usually an individual. they are asking for compensation not punishment

Question 5

what is a plaintiff

Answer 5

it is a claimant but this word is use in American or older cases

Question 6

what is the defendant in tort claim

Answer 6

it is a person/organisation who the claim is brought against

Question 7

what’s remedies

Answer 7

it is if the claimant is successful, then the court will award a remedy

Question 8

what is two remedies the claimant can be given

Answer 8

for damages they are given compensation.
an injunction is where the court order addressed to the defendant to make them to stop doing it.

Question 9

who has the burden of proof

Answer 9

the claimant

Question 10

what is the standard of proof and the percentages

Answer 10

it is on the balance of probabilities and is greater than 50%

Question 11

what is the purpose of tort law system

Answer 11

To provide compensation to someone that has wronged or injured by someone else negligent activities

Question 12

what is protected in tort

Answer 12

interests

Question 13

tort law depends on what

Answer 13

upon the existence of interests which others have the obligation to respect

Question 14

what are the failure to respect in tort law

Answer 14

your ‘person’- harm
your ‘ land and property’-indirect and direct
your ‘ economic loss’ in certain circumstances

Question 15

what is the compensation culture

Answer 15

it implies that a significant number of claims for compensation for torts such as negligence are unjustified or fraudulent

Question 16

what does critics argued with about compensation culture

Answer 16

argue that people should take greater responsibility for their own actions, accepting that are their own fault rather bringing claims

Question 17

what is the main difference between tort law and contract law

Answer 17

it is the relationship between the parties

Question 18

what do contract law in their relationship

Answer 18

there is a legal relationship between the parties as they have entered a contract with each other

Question 19

what does nuisance mean

Answer 19

interference of enjoyment and use of land

Question 20

what does defamation mean

Answer 20

damage of reputation

Question 21

what are the three types of harm in tort of negligence

Answer 21

personal injury, damage of Property and economic loss

Question 22

what is the 3 steps of negligence

Answer 22

1. duty of care
   2.breach of duty
2. causation

Question 23

is there is no duty of care if you have caused damage

Answer 23

you will not be liable to the other party in negligence

Question 24

how does duty of care work and an example

Answer 24

in many court cases it is clear that a duty of care exists and example is a road accidents, it is clear as a driver of a car you owe a duty of care to other road users

Question 25

what do most courts look for in negligence

Answer 25

they look at what the defendant did and what damage was caused

Question 26

what will courts consider when deciding whether a duty of care should be established

Answer 26

floodgates
impact in insurance
impact on social activities and business
public policy

Question 27

what is a precedent

Answer 27

it is a judgement of a court of law city as an authority for deciding a similar set of fact.

Question 28

what is a judicial precedent

Answer 28

it is a decision of the court used as a source for further decision making. also know as stare decisis and by which precedent are binding and must be followed

Question 29

how does the duty of care work

Answer 29

it is every time the courts hear a new appeal case about duty of care and then makes a decision on whether a duty exists

Question 30

why are duty of care cases important

Answer 30

they are important as they shape the law of negligence and courts can often be torn between doing justice in a particular and preventing a increase in cases

Question 31

what case is linked with the neighbour principle

Answer 31

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

Question 32

what is the neighbour principle

Answer 32

it is one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure one’s neighbour

Question 33

what case is link to the two-stage test

Answer 33

Anns v Merton London borough 1967

Question 34

what did lord Wilberforce argued

Answer 34

he argued it was no longer necessary to find a precedent with similar facts a duty of care was to be determined by

Question 35

what are to two cases that link to establishing a duty of care

Answer 35

Caparo 1990
Robinson v chief constable of Yorkshire 2018

Question 36

What is the 3 steps for the caparo test

Answer 36

1). Harm foreseeable
2). Proximity relationship
3). Fair, just and reasonable

Question 37

What are the 3 steps if you don’t use the caparo test

Answer 37

1). Is there an automatic duty of care
2). Analogous cases (similar)
3). If not caparo

Question 38

What is the ratio decidendi that lord bridge stated

Answer 38

“… in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist… the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of “proximity”.. which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose impose a duty…”

Question 39

What does reasonable foreseeability deal with

Answer 39

Deals with idea that it should be reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s actions are ones that can be expected to cause loss or damage to anyone in the claiment’s position

Question 40

What is a case that links to reasonable foreseeability

Answer 40

Kent v Griffiths 2000

Question 41

What was the facts of the case of Kent v Griffiths

Answer 41

The fact that it was a person who foreseeable would suffer further injuries by a delay in providing an ambulance. The acceptance of the call of the call in this case established the duty. On the findings of the judge it was delay which caused the further injuries.

Question 42

What in ‘relationship’ in law

Answer 42

I means that the situation they were both in meant that the defendant could reasonably be expected to foresee that their actions could cause damage to the claimant.

Question 43

What must the claimant establish under the caparo test

Answer 43

1). The harm was reasonably foreseeable
2). That there was a relationship of proximity
3). That it is fair, just and reasonable to impose duty of care.

Question 44

Why the test for duty of care objective

Answer 44

Because court will ask whether a reasonable person the D’s position would reasonably have forseen that the C would suffer injury or harm

Question 45

Case that links proximity

Answer 45

Bourhill V young 1943

Question 46

What are the facts of bourhill V young

Answer 46

C was a pregnant fishwife. She got off tram and D drove his motorcycle past tram and collided with a car 50 feet away from away fishwife. C heard collusion but did not-see it. The c saw the aftermath, went into shock and her baby was still born

Question 47

What were legal point of bourhill V Young

Answer 47

Not duty of care was owed by D to C as there was not sufficient proximity between the C and D when the incident occurred

Question 48

What do the courts do when deciding if
It is fair, just and reasonable

Answer 48

The courts are bringing in a public policy test to decide as whether a duty of care should be owed

Question 49

What do the court take into account

Answer 49

Policy considerations to decide whether Duty of care should be owed, such as the police will not owe duty of care in negligence as it could lead to defensive policing

Question 50

What case links to fair, just and reasonable - to impose a duty of care

Answer 50

Hill V chief Constable of w. Yorkshire

Question 51

What the legal point of case Hill v chief of W. Yorkshire

Answer 51

Held that a duty can arise under that human rights act 1998 to investigate grave or serious crime which amounted totorture or degrading or inhuman treatment

Question 52

What are the 3 steps of a breach of duty

Answer 52

1). The standard of care
2). Foreseeability of harm/loss
3). Degree of risk - must be consider

Question 53

What case that links to standard of care

Answer 53

Blyth v Birmingham water works 1856

Question 54

Why is reasonable contextual

Answer 54

As it will change in different scenarios.example doctor will be held to the same standard of context

Question 55

What is the facts of Bolam 1957

Answer 55

A doctor did not give a patient relaxant drugs and wasn’t restrained and suffered major injuries. Doctor didn’t breach a duty

Question 56

What did house of Lords make after the Bolam case

Answer 56

The Bolam test
“ a medical professional is not guilty of negligence if he acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art.

Question 57

What are the facts of the case of nettle ship v Weston 1971 (learner)

Answer 57

D was a learner driver, taking a lesson with a friend. She couldn’t straightened the wheel and mounted the pavement and mr nettleship was trying to stop resulting in a fractured knee.

Question 58

What is the legal point of the case of nettleship v Weston 1971

Answer 58

Everyone who driving is held to the same standard of care even if they are learning or a new driver. It is the same as a junior doctor will be held to same standard to doctor in general

Question 59

Small risk?

Answer 59

Minimal precautious

Question 60

Big risk?

Answer 60

Substantial precautious

Question 61

The degree of risk is relevant in ?

Answer 61

In terms of how cautious the defendant ought to be
Precaution need only ever be reasonable

Question 62

What one of the cases links to degree of risk

Answer 62

Paris v Stepney borough council 1951

Question 63

What’s the facts of the case 0f Paris v Stepney borough council 1951

Answer 63

A man who worked in a aggregator got a mental sprinter in his sighted eye and became completely blind, his employer didn’t give him goggles. D argued that it wasn’t a breach of duty as he didn’t provide googles to worker with vision in both eyes and wasn’t a standard practice to.

Question 64

what was the legal point of the case of Paris v Stepney borough council 1951

Answer 64

It was a breach of duty as the employer should of provided goggles because the seriousness of harm would have been greater that experienced by workers with sight in both eyes. The duty is owed to the particular claimant not to a class of persons of reasonable workers.

Question 65

What are the 2 parts that damages is broken down to

Answer 65

• factual causation
• remoteness of damage (legal causation)

Question 66

What is factual causation demonstrated through

Answer 66

The ‘but for’ test

Question 67

What is the ‘but for test determine by

Answer 67

Whether, the ‘but for’ D’s act or omission, would the injury or loss occurred.

Question 68

When is D liable in the ‘but for’ test

Answer 68

If the injury or loss would not have occurred

Question 69

When is D not liable in the ‘but for’ test

Answer 69

If the injury or loss would have occurred anyway

Question 70

What case link to factual causation (but for)

Answer 70

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital management committee 1969

Question 71

What’s the facts of the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital management committee 1969

Answer 71

3 nigh watchmen went to A&E complaining oof vomiting after drinking tea. The duty doctor, didn’t examine them and told them to go home and rest. One of the men went home and died a few hours later of arsenic poisoning. Claimed that the doctor breached of duty for not examining them. However, evidence showed by the time C got to the doctor, there was nothing they could do.

Question 72

The legal points of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital management committee 1969

Answer 72

No factual causation as the case failed the but for test. His death was not caused by the doctor’s breach of duty , it could not be said that’ but for’ the doctor’s failure to examine him, he would not have died

Question 73

What is the test for remoteness of damages

Answer 73

It is reasonable foreseeability, such as the harm or injury suffered must not too, which can be said it is ‘unforeseeable’
Mainly about the particular injury or loss suffered by the claimant

Question 74

What the case that links to remoteness of damage

Answer 74

The wagon mound 1961

Question 75

What the facts of the case of the wagon mound 1961

Answer 75

Fuel oil had benne negligently spilled from D’s ship in the sea in Sydney harbour. The wind and tide carried the oil spill towards the C’s wharf. C was carrying out welding repairs. Two days later, the oil caught fire as a result the welding and C’s wharf burned down

Question 76

What the legal point of the case of the wagon mound 1961

Answer 76

Although damage down to the wharf by the oil was reasonably foreseeable, fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable and therefor the damage too remote and there was no negligence

Question 77

What is intervening acts (novus interventions)

Answer 77

There is no legal causation where there is an intervening act.

Question 78

What the three chain of causation can be broken by

Answer 78

Act by the claimant
Act by nature
Act by third party

Question 79

What case links to act by the claimant

Answer 79

McKew v Hollands 1969

Question 80

What’s the facts of the case of mckew v hollands 1969

Answer 80

C sustained an injury at work due to his employer’s breach of duty. He strained his back and hips and his leg was prone to giving way. Whilst in this stated he attempted to climb down a steep concrete staircase without the handrail, got part way down there and felt his leg give way so he jumped 10 steps. He suffered a fractured ankle and left with a permanent disability.D accepted liability for the injury during his employment but disputed liability for the second injuries resulting in C actions.

Question 81

What the legal points of mckew v hollands 1969

Answer 81

C’s action amounted to a novus acts interveniens because his actions in attempting to climb the steps unaided knowing his leg might give way was unreasonable. D was therefore not liable foe the injuries resulting from the incidence on the stairs.

Question 82

What the case that links to act by nature

Answer 82

Carslogie steamship co. v royal norwegian government 1952

Question 83

What’s the facts of the case of Carslogie steamship co. v royal norwegian government 1952

Answer 83

The heimgar was damaged in a collision with the carslogie. After temporary repairs. It encountered storm damage on its way to New York, requiring further repairs. The collision damaged was fixed before addressing the storm damage during a 30-day repair period in New York.

Question 84

What’s the legal point of the case of Carslogie steamship co. v royal norwegian government 1952

Answer 84

It was held that Ds were only liable and responsible for the loss of profit resulting from the collision, not for further damages sustained by the natural events of the sea. The claim for loss during the 10 day period was not awarded. The chain of causation was broken by natural events

Question 85

What the case links to act by a third party

Answer 85

Knightly v johns 1982

Question 86

What’s the facts of the case of knightly v johns 1982

Answer 86

Mr. John’s negligent driving caused his car to overturn in a tunnel. Two police officers arrived and were instructed to close the tunnel entrance. Instead of taking the long route, one officer, Mr. John Knightly, drove on the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with another vehicle driven by Mr. Cotton. The key issue is whether Mr. John remains liable or if the actions of the other defendants and the claimant constitute a new intervening act.

Question 87

What’s the legal point of the case of knightly v johns 1982

Answer 87

The senior officer’s instruction and failure to close the entrance to the tunnel were negligent and broke the chain of causation. C’s decision on going through the tunnels was not negligent. Thus the C was entitled to full damages for the senior officer and mr john was not liable

Question 88

Does it matter if the type of damage is extreme

Answer 88

No, as long as the type of damage caused is foreseeable, the actual level of damage can be extreme

Question 89

What case links to extreme damage

Answer 89

bradford v robinson rentals 1967

Question 90

What’s the facts of the case of bradford v robinson rentals 1967

Answer 90

C was sent by his employer (D) to drive a long distance to exchange an old van for a new vehicle during extremely cold whether conditions. Neither of the vehicles he drove were heated and as a resulted, C suffered frostbite

Question 91

What’s the legal point of the case of bradford v robinson rentals 1967

Answer 91

If the type of damages is reasonable foreseeable, it does not matter of the damage suffered is rare or extreme. Although. Frostbite is rare, injury through cold exposure could be foreseen in this case

Question 92

What does eggshell skull rule

Answer 92

Must take victim as you find them

Question 93

What case links to eggshell skull rule

Answer 93

smith v leech brain 1962

Question 94

What the facts of the case of smith v leech brain 1962

Answer 94

C was burned on the lip by molten as a result of D’s breach of duty of care. He had an existing precancerous condition. The burn eventually brought about the onset of full cancer and the man died.

Question 95

What’s the legal point of the case of smith v leech brain 1962

Answer 95

The burn was a foreseeable consequence of D’s negligence and this resulted in the death. D was liable for his death. It was not necessary to show that the death by cancer was foreseeable, nor that an ordinary person would not have died from the injury. The eggshell (thin) skull rule applies and D must take his victim as he finds him

Question 96

What does unknown to science mean

Answer 96

It is not reasonable foreseeable if the accident occurred as a resulted of a totally unknown event

Question 97

What case links to unknown to science

Answer 97

doughty v turner Ltd 1964

Question 98

What’s the facts of the case of doughty v turner Ltd 1964

Answer 98

The cover on a cauldron of exceedingly hot molten sodium cyanide was accidentally knocked into the cauldron. C, a worker, was injured when the cauldron erupted like a volcano exploding. Scientific knowledge at the time was that there might be small splash but no violent explosion

Question 99

What’s the legal point of the case of doughty v turner Ltd 1964

Answer 99

The claim failed. D employer owed a duty of care in respect of only foreseeable risks. In this case the risk of splashing of the liquid if the cover fell into it, not for the unknown violent consequences.