Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

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
Q

rose v plenty

A

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

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

lister v hesley hall

A

warden of a school abused the pupils- was VL as abuse happened in connection with his employment

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

various claimants v catholic child welfare soc

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

Barclays Bank v various claimants

A

doctor gave dodgy medical exams to employees of barclays- Barclays weren’t liable as he was an independent contractor

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

Wilsons and Clyde v English

A

3 areas of employers duty
- provision of competent staff
- provision of adequate materials/premises
- provision of a proper system of work and effective supervision

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

smith v crossley bros

A

rubber tube up arse with pressured air- injured- EL wasn’t found because it was unpredictable

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

Coltman v bibby tankers

A

EL applied when an employee died on a defective ship

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

Paris v Stepney council

A

hadn’t taken reasonable care to protect the worker with one eye- his other eye got injured

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

when can claim for economic loss after a negligent act?

A
  • as a consequence of acquiring a defective item of property
  • as a consequence of physical damage to 3rd partys property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Murphy v Brentwood

A

cant claim for PEL

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

jacobs v morton

A

can claim if a defect in one part of the item damages the other parts

35
Q

spartan steel

A
  • 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
Q

Hedley byrne v heller

A

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
Q

factors to consider for NM

A
  • purpose for which the statement is made and communicated
  • relationship
  • state of knowledge
  • reliance
38
Q

DoC for road users

A

nettleship v Weston

39
Q

DoC for doctor/patient

A

bolam v Friern Hospital

40
Q

omissions- fire started by vandals- no DoC

A

smiths v littlewoods

41
Q

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

A

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks

42
Q

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

A

roe v minister of health

43
Q

but for test

A

cork v Kirby

44
Q

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

A

Scott v shepherd

45
Q

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

A

wagon mound number 1

46
Q

must be a recognised illness- organic depression

A

mcloughlin v obrien

47
Q

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

A

page v smith

48
Q

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

A

Alcock v chief constable of south Yorkshire police

49
Q

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

A

white v chief constable of South Yorkshire police

50
Q

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

A

mcfarlane v Caledonia

51
Q

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

A

woolridge v sumner

52
Q

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

A

pitts v hunt

53
Q

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

A

ici v Shatwell

54
Q

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

A

Ashton v turner

55
Q

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

A

froom v butcher

56
Q

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

A

cope v Sharpe

57
Q
  • future progress of injury
  • impact of vagaries of life
  • inflation
  • claimants future job prospects
A

4 key variables to assess future loss

58
Q
  • non-pecuniary loss eg general damages for pain and suffering
  • pecuniary loss to date eg loss of earnings, medical expenses
  • future pecuniary losses
A

PI claims must be broken down into

59
Q
  • non-pecuniary loss eg general damages for pain and suffering
  • pecuniary loss to date eg loss of earnings, medical expenses
  • future pecuniary losses
A

PI claims must be broken down into

60
Q
  • must be a tort
  • committed by an employee/relationship akin to employment
  • in the course of employment/close connection
A

vicarious liability requirements

61
Q

‘on a frolic of his own’ employer not liable

A

Joel v morrison

62
Q

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

A

rose v plenty

63
Q

warden of a school abused the pupils- was VL as abuse happened in connection with his employment

A

lister v hesley hall

64
Q
  • 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?
A

various claimants v catholic child welfare soc

65
Q

doctor gave dodgy medical exams to employees of barclays- Barclays weren’t liable as he was an independent contractor

A

Barclays Bank v various claimants

66
Q

3 areas of employers duty
- provision of competent staff
- provision of adequate materials/premises
- provision of a proper system of work and effective supervision

A

Wilsons and Clyde v English

67
Q

rubber tube up arse with pressured air- injured- EL wasn’t found because it was unpredictable

A

smith v crossley bros

68
Q

EL applied when an employee died on a defective ship

A

Coltman v bibby tankers

69
Q

hadn’t taken reasonable care to protect the worker with one eye- his other eye got injured

A

Paris v Stepney council

70
Q
  • as a consequence of acquiring a defective item of property
  • as a consequence of physical damage to 3rd partys property
A

when can claim for economic loss after a negligent act?

71
Q

cant claim for PEL

A

Murphy v Brentwood

72
Q

can claim if a defect in one part of the item damages the other parts

A

jacobs v morton

73
Q
  • 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
A

spartan steel

74
Q

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

A

Hedley byrne v heller

75
Q
  • purpose for which the statement is made and communicated
  • relationship
  • state of knowledge
  • reliance
A

factors to consider for NM

76
Q

brown v cotterill

A

ultimate consumer is anyone foreseeably harmed by it

77
Q

glasgow corp v Taylor

A

kid ate poisonous berries and died- no warnings- not caged off- liable

78
Q

wheat v lacon

A

occupier- a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises

78
Q

who is a visitor? wheat v lacon pt 2

A

the person coming lawfully there is a visitor

79
Q

Harvey v Plymouth city council

A
  • 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
Q

tomlinson v congleton borough council

A
  • 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
Q

ultimate consumer is anyone foreseeably harmed by it

A

brown v cotterill

82
Q

kid ate poisonous berries and died- no warnings- not caged off- liable

A

glasgow corp v Taylor

83
Q

the person coming lawfully there is a visitor

A

who is a visitor? wheat v lacon pt 2

84
Q

occupier- a person with a sufficient degree of control over the premises

A

wheat v lacon

85
Q
  • 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
A

Harvey v Plymouth city council

UNI (18 decks)

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