Tort

Question 1

Novel duty situations
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]

Answer 1

Reasonable foreseeable harm to claimant.
Sufficient proximity of relationship between claimant and defendant.
Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty.

Question 2

Factual causation

Answer 2

Material increase in risk - scientific uncertainty.
Material contribution - simultaneous causes - multiple causes.

Question 3

Pure economic loss
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973]

Answer 3

Owed duty of care for damage for property they did own and financial loss consequent.

Question 4

Negligent statements

Answer 4

Special relationship.
Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] -
Assumption of responsibility by defendant.
Reasonable reliance by the claimant.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] -
Defendant knew purpose for which advice required.
Defendant knew advice would be communicated to claimant (or class).
Defendant knew claimant was likely to act on advice without independent inquiry.
Advice acted on by claimant to its detriment.
Exception to social situation - Chaudhry v Prabhkar [1989] -
More experience, knowledge, clear they would rely on judgement - assumed responsibility.

Question 5

Pure psychiatric harm
Primary victims

Answer 5

Medically recognised psychiatric illness or shock-induced physical condition.
In actual area of danger or reasonably believed.
Provided risk of physical injury foreseeable.

Question 6

Secondary victims

Answer 6

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [1991] -
Foreseeability of psychiatric harm.
Proximity of relationship - close ties of love and affection.
Proximity of time and space.
Proximity of perception.

Question 7

Employer’s liability

Answer 7

Wilsons & Coal Ltd v English [1937] -
Reasonable steps to provide -
Competent staff.
Adequate material
Proper system of work and supervision.
Latimer AEC Ltd [1953] -
Safe place of work.
Personal and non-delegable.

Question 8

Vicarious liability

Answer 8

Worker must be an employee (or akin).
Employee must have committed a tort.
Employee’s tort must have committed in course of employment.

Question 9

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957

Answer 9

Establish they have suffered loss due to state of premises.
Identify occupier.
Prove they are a visitor.
Establish that occupier failed to take reasonable for visitor’s safety.
Duty to take such care is reasonable in all circumstances to see that visitor is reasonably safe in using premises for purposes for which they are permitted to be there.

Question 10

Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984

Answer 10

Be aware of danger or has reasonable grounds to believe.
Know or has reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is in vicinity of danger or may come into.
Reasonably expected to offer some protection against risk.

Question 11

Consumer Protection Act 1987

Answer 11

They have suffered damage caused by defect in product.
Private property - £275.
Not repairing/replacing - pure economic loss.

Question 12

Negligence
Duty of care - narrow rule - Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]

Answer 12

Defendant is manufacturer.
Item causing damage is product.
Claimant is consumer.
Product reached consumer in form it left manufacturer with no reasonable possibility of intermediate examination.

Question 13

Rylands v Fletcher (1968)

Answer 13

Defendant brings onto their land for their own purposes something likely to do mischief.
If it escapes.
Which represents non-natural use of land.
Causes foreseeable damage of relevant type.
Isolated.

Question 14

Private nuisance

Answer 14

Interference with claimant’s use and enjoyment of land or some right they enjoy over it.
Interference is unlawful.
Not personal injury.

Question 15

Public nuisance

Answer 15

Unreasonable conduct that materially affects reasonable comfort and convenience of a ‘class of His Majesty’s subjects’.
Claimant suffered particular harm.