TORT Flashcards
DUTY OF CARE NOT DONE
to prove negligent
1- owed duty of care
2- d breached that duty
3- D’s breach of duty of caused damage
PROXIMITY
Mcloughlin v O’brien
- she was sufficiently proximate- not geog
FORESEEABILITY
Bournhill v Young
not have been foreseeable by an ordinary person in this situation.
Hayley v LEB
number of blind people was sufficient to require that the reasonable should have foreseen the possibility of this
EQUITABILITY
Mulcahy v Mod
claimant was proximate and foreseeable but it would not have been fair
Hill v CCWY
- police do not owe a duty to protect the public through the performance of their investigation of crime
POLICY
Alcock v CCsy
- policy can prevnt a duty even where caparo test met, eg lack of funds to pay all claims
Robinson v ccwy
- caparo only needed fr novel cases
ECONOMIC LOSS
Weller and co foot and mouth disease reasearch institute
- not a direct consequence of breach
- pure economic loss
spartan steel and alloys ltd v martin and co
- the third damage was pure economic loss
- d’s reliance on misstatement must be proper and unreasonable
Hedley Byrne v Heller& Partners Ltd
held: included a disclaimer ,
Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman
established the 5 requirement of a special relationship where d. And be liable for misstatement
EL 5 STAGE LOSS
D must possess knowledge or skill in the field concerned
- white v jones
the solicitor owed a duty having assumed the reponsibility of drawing up that will
C would properly and reasonably rely on D’s advice
- steel v NRAM
could not properly and reasonably claim that they had relied in the content of the solicitors email- should have verified
D knows the purpose of the advice
caparo v Dickman
D knows the advice would be communicated to particular C
banco nazionale v playboy
- established the 5 requirement of a special relationship where d and be liable for misstatement
No disclaimer exists
hedley byrne v heller
included a disclaimer
chaudry v prabhakar
- his knowledge was superior and knew thats he relied on it
PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
PRIMARY: someone who reasonably feared injury from accident
page v Smith
- physical injury was foreseeable so was psychiatric
SECONDARY: witnesses harm but not in danger of physical harm
SHOCKING EVENT:
Liverpool Women’s Hospital v Ronayne
- the event must be objectively, exceptional, sudden and horrifying-
Sion v Hampstead Authority
- the court, accepting a psychiatrist’s report, held that there was no sudden shock
Normal fortitude: actual fortitude is not an issue unless they are weak
Alcock v Ccosy
- hearness, nearness and dearness
HEARNESS- own unaided senses
NEARNESS- - immediate aftermath
McLoughlin v O’brian- near
DEARNESS- close love and affection
RESCUERS
Chadwickv BRB
a rescuer can claim for nervous shock
Attia v British gas
amage to personal property can lead to a psychiatric loss
RYLAND V FLETCHER
- D brought onto his land for his own purposes something likely to do mischief
Dunne v North West Gas
the thing needed to be brought onto the land for D’s own purposes but it was brought for the benefit of the public - it escapes
Read v Jones lyons & co
escaped means leave the owner’s land and there to be damage to other land
Stannard v Gore - The dangerous thing itself needs to escape
- it represented an unnatural use of land
Rikards v lothian
here was an escape but he was the premises in an ordinary way, more like unordinary that unnatural
Transco PLC v Stockport - it causes foreseeable damage of the relevant type
Cambridge water co v easter counties leather - the damage the escape might lead to must be reasonably foreseeable
Transco PLC v Stockport MBC
- danger and the unnatural element should be extraordinarily high or unusual for liability
Perry v kendricks trasnport
- the act of a stranger can be a defence
NUISANCE
- tort against land
- ongoing issue rather than a single event
- can be via indirect damage or loss of amenity
EQUITABLE OR PROPIETARY INTEREST
Hunter v Canary wharf
i1- could not be based on the mere presence of a building
i2- only those with an interest in the land were able to claim successfully
St Helens smelting v Tipping
held: where there is physical damage to property, the locality principle has no relevance
REASONABLY FORESEABLE DAMAGE
Cambridge water co v eastern counties leather
held: the type of damage caused caused was not reasonably foreseeable ie too remote therefore the claimants action failed
UNREASONABLE
Robinson v Kilvert
held:nuisance will not protect extraordinarily sensitive claimants
LOCALITY:
sturges v bridgman
held: locality can make use of land unreasnable and comung to the nuisance is not defence
TIME OF DAY
Hayley v esso petroleum
held: time of day can make use of land unreasonable
MOTIVE
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emett
held: malicious motive can make use of land unreasonable
METHOD
Leeman v Montague
held: the method chosen for an activity can make the use of land unreasonable
DURATION
Andreae v Selfridge
held: temporary interference with enjoyment of land is not a nusiance unless the defendant fails to take reasonable steps to minimise it
DANGER
spicer v smee
held: the presence of an ongoing danger on anothers land can be deemed a nuisance
PRESCRIPTION
Miller v Jackson
held:
Coventry v Lawrence
held: I DONT KNOW
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
- was the relationship between the tortfeasor( did the bad thing) and the defendant capable of giving rise to vicarious liability
Ready Mixed Concrete v Ministry of pension
held: the drivers were independent contractors
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants
held: Vicarious liability can exist in relationships “akin to employment” if two stage test met and more than one party can be vicariously liable
Cox v Ministry of Justice
Confirms test above and points out that furtherance of the defendant’s aims is important regardless of whether they are commercial
Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants
held: dr bates was not and employee or akin to
-2. was there a sufficiently close connection between the tort and the relationship for it to be fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability
limpus v London general
held: authorised act in an unauthorised mode= in course of employment
Beard v London General Onibus co#
held: unauthorised act eequivalent to not doing their job = not in course of employment
lister v hesley hall
DUTY OF CARE
PROXIMITY
MCloughlin v Obrien: it was not just geography
FORESEEABILITY
Bournhill v Young: she was not a reasonably foreseeable victim
Hayley v LEB: the number of blind people in the population was sufficient to require forseeable
EQUITABILITY
Mulcahy v Ministry of defence
held: imposing a duty on a soldier in an active battke was not equitable
Hill v Ccwy: police do not owe a duty to protect the public through the performance of their investigation of crime
POLICY
Alcock v CCSY: policy can prevent a duty even where caparo test met lack of funds to pay all claims
robinson v CCwy
- Caparo only needed for novel- police owe duty where injury caused by commission
BREACH OF DUTY
Blyth v Birmingham water works
- such bad weather that this would not have been in any reasonable suppliers contemplation
Roe v Minister Health
- no one knew that it could permeate glasss, if happened again they would be liable
Nettleship v Weston
- the standard of care expected was that of qualified driver and D fell before the standard and was liable regardless
Mullin v Richards
held: claimants age taken into account
Bolam v Frien Barnet Hospital management committee
held: professionals
Bolton v Stone
held: the likelihood of the injury and seriousness were not sufficient to justify the cost of prevention
Paris v Stepney
held: there was a breach of duty- should have provided goggles. potential seriousness of any injury outweighed the cost of preventing it or the usefulness of the claimants actions
Watt v Hertfordshire county coucil
held- saving life and limb justifies taking considerable risk
DAMAGE CAUSED BY BREACH
Two part test
- was the defendant the factual cause? ‘but for’
- if so was the damage remote
Barnett v Chelsea and kensington
held: did not cause the death but did owe a duty death as inevitable
REMOTENESS
the wagon mound no1
held: only for damage of slipway as it was only foreseeable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
held: unpredictable that it would explode but leaving it unattended was breach of duty
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council
Smith v Leech Brain
held: think skull rule
RES IPSA LOQUITUR
Scott v London & Katherine docks
held: did the defendant control was the event unlikely to happen without negligence
World v Tesco
held: it could be presumed tesco were negligent in the claimants case
Gee v Metropolitan Railway
held: leant on a defective train door as it travelled between stations
Widdowson v newgate Meat Corp
held: hit on a pavement at night by a meat lorry
