tort Flashcards
what is the heirachy of the courts (low to hi)
- county
- magistrates
3.crown - hight( family, chnavary and king’s bench division
- court of appeal
- supreme court
what are the 8 rules given by lord woolf
1.be just
2. be fair
3. offer appropriate procedures ata a reasonable cost
4.deal with cases with reasonable speed
5.be understandable to those who use it
6.be responsive to the needs of those who use it
7.provides aas much certainty as the nature of particular case allows
8. be effective
what system did lord Woolf introduce to the civil courts
the track system
what was the reform in 2009 that introduced the track system
The Jackson reform
what were the 4 tracks in the system
- small track- claims up to £10,000 up to £1500 personal injury claims
2.fast track- claims between £10,000 and £25,000 - intermediate track- claims between £25,000 and £100,000. the trial must be likely to last no longer than 3 days no more than 2 experst per party
- multi track- cliams over £ 100,000 or complex cases over £25,000
what is a tort
it’s a civil wrong
what is the definition of negligence
breach of duty of care resulting in damages
what case defines negligence?
Blyth v Birmingham Water works
what are the 3 requirements for negligence
- the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care
- the defendant breached the duty of care
- the defendants breach cause injury/loss
what case defines the neighbour principle
Donoghue v Stevenson
what is the neighbour principle
a duty of care that exists towards persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in companion
what is the caparo test
- reasonably foreseeable
2.proximity - fair, just and foreseeable
what is the definition of reasonably foreseeable
a duty is only owed to those to whom it is reasonably foreseeable that damage could be caused. This is an objective test.
what was held in Bourhill v young
It was held that it was not reasonably foreseeable that Mrs Bourhill would suffer loss or damage from Mr Young’s negligence.
what was held in Jolley v Sutton LBC
It was a held that it was reasonably foreseeable that the claimant would suffer damage from the failure to remove the boat.
