Topic plans Flashcards
Vicarious liability
- when organisation is liable for negligence of employee
- employee requirements (who controls, vitality in organisation, economic reality of relationship)
- VL requirements (negligence, scope of employment)
Discuss through:
- Viasystems
- Stages
- Williams
- Bellman
- Morrisons
- Barclays
- Lister
- Catholic
Public authorities
Police have duty to not directly effect loss, but not to protect individuals from third parties
- Hill
- Gibson
- Robinson
Fire authority don’t have duty to put out fire, but can’t make it worse
- AJ Allan
- Duff
Road authorities don’t have to maintain signs, markings, etc…, but need to take reasonable steps to remove hazards
- MacDonald v Aberdeenshire Council
Economic delicts
Intentionally causing economic loss is not unlawful. Only unlawful if illegal means used.
- Allan v flood
- Crofter v Veitch
Includes inducing breach of contract
- Deacon
- Rooks v Barnard
Pure economic loss
Distinction between primary and secondary victims
Primary can recover
Secondary can’t
Dynamco
Murphy v Brentwood DC
Reavis (Secondary)
Extends to negligent misstatements
- Hedley Byrne
Unjustified enrichment
Enrichment at the expense of another
Bell’s incorrect categories
- restitution (property)
- repetition (money)
- recompense (residue)
- Negotiorum gestio
Morgan Guaranty Trust = categories are not concrete for cases, guidance/categories of unjustified enrichment
Shilliday v Smith
Negotiorum gestio
When no capacity/unavailable, third party can administer affairs of another for their benefit - without consent
Dominus and gestor
Requirements
- no authorisation from dominus
- positive intention
- dominus physically unavailable
Consequences
- reimbursement for gestor
- dominus relieves gestor of liabilities incurred
- gestor liable for fault
Defences
Consent
- requires: knowledge of risk and informed consent
- Smolden v Whitworth
Illegality
- requires: significant criminality
- Weir v Wyper
Necessity
- emergency defence
- Cope v Sharpe
Nuisance
Infringing on neighbouring property
Test of reasonable tolerance
Watt v Jamieson
- nuisance always actionable
- locality principle
RHM - need fault
Fearn
Psychiatric illness
Simpson v ICI
Primary v secondary
Primary can recover
Secondary can’t
Page v Smith
Secondary
- Alcock
- Robertson
- McLoughlin
- Weddle
DIPR
Stevens v NHS Yorkhill Trust - can recover both physical damage and DIPR
Body
- assault (AR v Coxen)
- harassment
Reputation
- defamation (qualified and absolute privilege: Buchanan v Jennings)
- restriction of liberty
Honour - privacy (BC and others)
Remedies:
- damages
- interdict
- statement in open court
Negligence
Duty of care must exist for action to be available
Donoghue
Bourhill
Hughes
Caparo
Darnley
Breach
Duty must be breached in order for claim to be actionable
Muir
Causation
Uninterrupted chain of causation from defendant’s actions to loss
Novus actus interveniens - the Oropesa
But for test - Barnett
Remedies
Declarator
Interdict
Damages
- Allan v Barclay
