tort law Flashcards
occupiers liability to visitors
occupiers owe a duty of care to visitors by keeping them reasonably safe for the purpose of their visit by warning them of any real dangers
professional visitors
Roles v Nathan
if the danger was part of their job then the occupier doenst need to warn about it
laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
the visitor must take reasonable care or their claim will fail
children - visitors
theyre is a higher duty of care to children
jolley v london borough of sutton
debell v rochester catherdral
the occupier only needs to warn of real dangers
occupiers liability to trespassers
OLA 1984 only provides damages for personal injury
claim must arise put of a dangerous premises not the dangerous actions of the trespasser
ratcliffe v Mcconnell
obvious danger - do not need to warn of this
of pool at night and there was signs but they werent lit up but thats okay
keown v coventry healthcare NHS
no higher duty of care owed to children who trespass
visitors structure
- who is occupier
- is claiment lawful visitor?
- duty of care from defendant
- real source of danger?
- did def keep claim safe?
- did claiment take care
- is claiment a child
- is claiment professional
- damages
trespassers structure
l-who is occupier -is claiment trespasser -does def owe duty of care? AVE IT s.1(3) of OLA 1984 -aware of danger? people in vicinity? expected to protect? BREACH -def taken reasonable steps? what care should have given? has def breached? -claiment do obvious danger -is claiment a child
burden of proof
who needs to show the evidence
standard of proof
how much evidence you need to show to prove your case
duty of care
a duty to take care for others and look out for them
will fail if > fail to act reasonably, probability of harm, fall below the standard of care of the ordinary person
donoghue v stevenson
friend drank ginger beer with decomposing snail given to her
her friend owes a duty of care as he gave her the product
caparo three part test
harm was reasonably FORESEEABLE
there was a relationship of PROXIMITY
fair, just, and REASONABLE to make a duty of care
Hill v cheif constable of west yorkshire
rare cases where police owe a duty of care to the public
it is not fair just and reasonable to expect this
standard of care
the ordinary person perfoming a particular task
standard of care depends on the individuals skills
the ordinary person
D is compared against objective reasonable man
wells v cooper - mr cooper fitted door and it fell on mr wells
negligence
is the lack of care to satisfy the duty of care
damages/ loss
wagon mound - losses are recoverable
special - know how much it is eg phone or object
general - could be pain or loss of a leg
Bolton v Stone
if the risk is high cause then breach is even more likely
Bolam
standard of care required is the ordinary man
negligence structure
was harm foreseeable, did they have proximity, would it be fair just and reasonable to impose liability
we’re they D and C neighbours
ordinary man, size of risk Bolton
damages. but for. special, general
contributory negligence
how much an injury was made worse by the victim and takes of damages based on this
ordinary claimant would have taken more care
Sayers v Harlow
POL - judge will award damages then reduce them by what’s necessary.
consent
claimant knows there is a risk.
voluntary - claimant agreed
agreement - agree w their choice
knowledge - must know the risk
negligence in psychiatric injury
duty, breach, loss
independent psychiatrist must show there is injury.
primary claimant in psychiatric injury
directly involved. as long as physical harm is foreseeable, you can pass psychiatric injury.
Page v Smith
all you must see is risk of physical injury not psychiatric but still pass
primary victim 2
rescuers - attends to scene. may suffer psychiatric damage as a result of their experiences e.g. hillsbrough.
rescuers must fear for own safety
white v chief constable of yorkshire
police officers saw horrific scenes. did suffer psychiatric damage however claim failed as they did not fear for won safety.
“must be in the zone of physical danger “ - space and time
secondary victims
not in personal danger but witnessed the accident or aftermath
Alcock’s case - hillsborough
cases from relatives of fans killed. house of lords made qualifying criteria to pass to stop the flood gates of litigation opening
rule 1 secondary victims
The claimant must have close ties of love and affection
e.g. family members, married couples but not just bf/gf - this must be proven.
Mcloughlin v Obrien
saw her family after accident in hospital before treatment. she succeeded.
alcock rule 2
victim must be close to the accident in time or space
alcock rule 3
victim must see the accident or aftermath with their own eyes. not enough to be told about it or see it on tv.
