Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

UNI > Tort > Flashcards

Tort Flashcards

1
Q

nettleship v Weston

A

DoC for road users

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

bolam v Friern Hospital

A

DoC for doctor/patient

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

smiths v littlewoods

A

omissions- fire started by vandals- no DoC

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

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks

A

Cs property flooded when a frozen pipe burst- D not liable as wouldn’t be reasonable for them to guard against this

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

roe v minister of health

A

state of knowledge- D was paralysed after surgery but the medical knowledge at the time wasn’t good enough to know it would happen

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

cork v Kirby

A

but for test

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

Scott v shepherd

A

intervening act of 3rd party- lit squib- instinctive so doesnt break chain of causation

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

wagon mound number 1

A

the kind of damage must be reasonably foreseeable but the extent and precise manner need not be

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

mcloughlin v obrien

A

must be a recognised illness- organic depression

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

page v smith

A

can claim for psych illness if you suffered/feared foreseeable physical harm

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

Alcock v chief constable of south Yorkshire police

A

5 part test
- psych illness was foreseeable in a person of reasonable fortitude
- close relationship of love and affection
- close proximity in time and space to the scene of the accident
- means of perceiving was through own senses
- illness must be induced by a sudden shocking event

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

white v chief constable of South Yorkshire police

A

rescuers- police officers at Hillsborough- couldn’t claim- needed to show actual danger

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

mcfarlane v Caledonia

A

oil rig disaster, he was too far away to be in danger so couldn’t claim

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

woolridge v sumner

A

volenti- photographer knocked down by horse- must be an agreement between parties, claimant must have full knowledge of the risk

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

pitts v hunt

A

claimant took a lift from a drunk driver with no licence- driver couldn’t rely on volenti because of road traffic act

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

ici v Shatwell

A

employer provided protection but employees didn’t use them- employer relied on volenti because it was their fault they didn’t use the protection- narrow exception

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

Ashton v turner

A

c was injured by ds negligent getaway car driving from a burglary- an action cannot be founded on an illegal act

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

froom v butcher

A

c need not have contributed to the accident but only the damage- eg no seatbelt- cont neg

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

cope v Sharpe

A

defence of necessity- man may trespass on neighbours land to prevent major harm

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

4 key variables to assess future loss

A
  • future progress of injury
  • impact of vagaries of life
  • inflation
  • claimants future job prospects
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

PI claims must be broken down into

A
  • non-pecuniary loss eg general damages for pain and suffering
  • pecuniary loss to date eg loss of earnings, medical expenses
  • future pecuniary losses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

PI claims must be broken down into

A
  • non-pecuniary loss eg general damages for pain and suffering
  • pecuniary loss to date eg loss of earnings, medical expenses
  • future pecuniary losses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

vicarious liability requirements

A
  • must be a tort
  • committed by an employee/relationship akin to employment
  • in the course of employment/close connection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Joel v morrison

A

‘on a frolic of his own’ employer not liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
rose v plenty
milkman employed a child to collect bottles for him- child got hurt- employers had warned him not to do this but vl was found anyway
25
lister v hesley hall
warden of a school abused the pupils- was VL as abuse happened in connection with his employment
26
various claimants v catholic child welfare soc
- is the relationship between X and Y capable of giving rise to VL? - is there a close connection that links the relationship between X and Y and the act or omission of X?
27
Barclays Bank v various claimants
doctor gave dodgy medical exams to employees of barclays- Barclays weren't liable as he was an independent contractor
28
Wilsons and Clyde v English
3 areas of employers duty - provision of competent staff - provision of adequate materials/premises - provision of a proper system of work and effective supervision
29
smith v crossley bros
rubber tube up arse with pressured air- injured- EL wasn't found because it was unpredictable
30
Coltman v bibby tankers
EL applied when an employee died on a defective ship
31
Paris v Stepney council
hadn't taken reasonable care to protect the worker with one eye- his other eye got injured
32
when can claim for economic loss after a negligent act?
- as a consequence of acquiring a defective item of property - as a consequence of physical damage to 3rd partys property
33
Murphy v Brentwood
cant claim for PEL
34
jacobs v morton
can claim if a defect in one part of the item damages the other parts
35
spartan steel
- can claim for loss of profit on damaged smelt and the cost of the damaged metal - but not the loss of profit from the machine being out of order
36
Hedley byrne v heller
negligent misstatement- special relationship test - c relied on ds skill and judgement - d knew or ought to have known c was relying on them - it was reasonable for C to do so
37
factors to consider for NM
- purpose for which the statement is made and communicated - relationship - state of knowledge - reliance
38
DoC for road users
nettleship v Weston
39
DoC for doctor/patient
bolam v Friern Hospital
40
omissions- fire started by vandals- no DoC
smiths v littlewoods
41
Cs property flooded when a frozen pipe burst- D not liable as wouldn't be reasonable for them to guard against this
Blyth v Birmingham waterworks
42
state of knowledge- D was paralysed after surgery but the medical knowledge at the time wasn't good enough to know it would happen
roe v minister of health
43
but for test
cork v Kirby
44
intervening act of 3rd party- lit squib- instinctive so doesnt break chain of causation
Scott v shepherd
45
the kind of damage must be reasonably foreseeable but the extent and precise manner need not be
wagon mound number 1
46
must be a recognised illness- organic depression
mcloughlin v obrien
47
can claim for psych illness if you suffered/feared foreseeable physical harm
page v smith
48
5 part test - psych illness was foreseeable in a person of reasonable fortitude - close relationship of love and affection - close proximity in time and space to the scene of the accident - means of perceiving was through own senses - illness must be induced by a sudden shocking event
Alcock v chief constable of south Yorkshire police
49
rescuers- police officers at Hillsborough- couldn't claim- needed to show actual danger
white v chief constable of South Yorkshire police
50
oil rig disaster, he was too far away to be in danger so couldn't claim
mcfarlane v Caledonia
51
volenti- photographer knocked down by horse- must be an agreement between parties, claimant must have full knowledge of the risk
woolridge v sumner
52
claimant took a lift from a drunk driver with no licence- driver couldn't rely on volenti because of road traffic act
pitts v hunt
53
employer provided protection but employees didn't use them- employer relied on volenti because it was their fault they didn't use the protection- narrow exception
ici v Shatwell
54
c was injured by ds negligent getaway car driving from a burglary- an action cannot be founded on an illegal act
Ashton v turner
55
c need not have contributed to the accident but only the damage- eg no seatbelt
froom v butcher
56
defence of necessity- man may trespass on neighbours land to prevent major harm
cope v Sharpe
57
- future progress of injury - impact of vagaries of life - inflation - claimants future job prospects
4 key variables to assess future loss
58
- non-pecuniary loss eg general damages for pain and suffering - pecuniary loss to date eg loss of earnings, medical expenses - future pecuniary losses
PI claims must be broken down into
59
- non-pecuniary loss eg general damages for pain and suffering - pecuniary loss to date eg loss of earnings, medical expenses - future pecuniary losses
PI claims must be broken down into
60
- must be a tort - committed by an employee/relationship akin to employment - in the course of employment/close connection
vicarious liability requirements
61
'on a frolic of his own' employer not liable
Joel v morrison
62
milkman employed a child to collect bottles for him- child got hurt- employers had warned him not to do this but vl was found anyway
rose v plenty
63
warden of a school abused the pupils- was VL as abuse happened in connection with his employment
lister v hesley hall
64
- is the relationship between X and Y capable of giving rise to VL? - is there a close connection that links the relationship between X and Y and the act or omission of X?
various claimants v catholic child welfare soc
65
doctor gave dodgy medical exams to employees of barclays- Barclays weren't liable as he was an independent contractor
Barclays Bank v various claimants
66
3 areas of employers duty - provision of competent staff - provision of adequate materials/premises - provision of a proper system of work and effective supervision
Wilsons and Clyde v English
67
rubber tube up arse with pressured air- injured- EL wasn't found because it was unpredictable
smith v crossley bros
68
EL applied when an employee died on a defective ship
Coltman v bibby tankers
69
hadn't taken reasonable care to protect the worker with one eye- his other eye got injured
Paris v Stepney council
70
- as a consequence of acquiring a defective item of property - as a consequence of physical damage to 3rd partys property
when can claim for economic loss after a negligent act?
71
cant claim for PEL
Murphy v Brentwood
72
can claim if a defect in one part of the item damages the other parts
jacobs v morton
73
- can claim for loss of profit on damaged smelt and the cost of the damaged metal - but not the loss of profit from the machine being out of order
spartan steel
74
negligent misstatement- special relationship test - c relied on ds skill and judgement - d knew or ought to have known c was relying on them - it was reasonable for C to do so
Hedley byrne v heller
75
- purpose for which the statement is made and communicated - relationship - state of knowledge - reliance
factors to consider for NM
76
brown v cotterill
ultimate consumer is anyone foreseeably harmed by it
77
glasgow corp v Taylor
kid ate poisonous berries and died- no warnings- not caged off- liable
78
wheat v lacon
occupier- a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises
78
who is a visitor? wheat v lacon pt 2
the person coming lawfully there is a visitor
79
Harvey v Plymouth city council
- implied consent to activities - when a council licenses the public to use its land for recreational purposes it is consenting to normal recreational activities carrying normal risks - implied licence cant be stretched to cover any forms of activity however reckless
80
tomlinson v congleton borough council
- dangerous water. no swimming - someone swam- council weren't liable- the swimmer was injured because he chose to indulge in an activity with inherent dangers, not because the premises were in a dangerous state
81
ultimate consumer is anyone foreseeably harmed by it
brown v cotterill
82
kid ate poisonous berries and died- no warnings- not caged off- liable
glasgow corp v Taylor
83
the person coming lawfully there is a visitor
who is a visitor? wheat v lacon pt 2
84
occupier- a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises
wheat v lacon
85
- implied consent to activities - when a council licenses the public to use its land for recreational purposes it is consenting to normal recreational activities carrying normal risks - implied licence cant be stretched to cover any forms of activity however reckless
Harvey v Plymouth city council

UNI (23 decks)

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