tort law

Question 1

occupiers liability to visitors

Answer 1

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

Question 2

professional visitors

Answer 2

Roles v Nathan

if the danger was part of their job then the occupier doenst need to warn about it

Question 3

laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme

Answer 3

the visitor must take reasonable care or their claim will fail

Question 4

children - visitors

Answer 4

theyre is a higher duty of care to children

jolley v london borough of sutton

Question 5

debell v rochester catherdral

Answer 5

the occupier only needs to warn of real dangers

Question 6

occupiers liability to trespassers

Answer 6

OLA 1984 only provides damages for personal injury

claim must arise put of a dangerous premises not the dangerous actions of the trespasser

Question 7

ratcliffe v Mcconnell

Answer 7

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

Question 8

keown v coventry healthcare NHS

Answer 8

no higher duty of care owed to children who trespass

Question 9

visitors structure

Answer 9

• 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

Question 10

trespassers structure

Answer 10

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

Question 11

burden of proof

Answer 11

who needs to show the evidence

Question 12

standard of proof

Answer 12

how much evidence you need to show to prove your case

Question 13

duty of care

Answer 13

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

Question 14

donoghue v stevenson

Answer 14

friend drank ginger beer with decomposing snail given to her

her friend owes a duty of care as he gave her the product

Question 15

caparo three part test

Answer 15

harm was reasonably FORESEEABLE
there was a relationship of PROXIMITY
fair, just, and REASONABLE to make a duty of care

Question 16

Hill v cheif constable of west yorkshire

Answer 16

rare cases where police owe a duty of care to the public

it is not fair just and reasonable to expect this

Question 17

standard of care

Answer 17

the ordinary person perfoming a particular task

standard of care depends on the individuals skills

Question 18

the ordinary person

Answer 18

D is compared against objective reasonable man

wells v cooper - mr cooper fitted door and it fell on mr wells

Question 19

negligence

Answer 19

is the lack of care to satisfy the duty of care

Question 20

damages/ loss

Answer 20

wagon mound - losses are recoverable
special - know how much it is eg phone or object
general - could be pain or loss of a leg

Question 21

Bolton v Stone

Answer 21

if the risk is high cause then breach is even more likely

Question 22

Bolam

Answer 22

standard of care required is the ordinary man

Question 23

negligence structure

Answer 23

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

Question 24

contributory negligence

Answer 24

how much an injury was made worse by the victim and takes of damages based on this
ordinary claimant would have taken more care

Question 25

Sayers v Harlow

Answer 25

POL - judge will award damages then reduce them by what’s necessary.

Question 26

consent

Answer 26

claimant knows there is a risk.
voluntary - claimant agreed
agreement - agree w their choice
knowledge - must know the risk

Question 27

negligence in psychiatric injury

Answer 27

duty, breach, loss
independent psychiatrist must show there is injury.

Question 28

primary claimant in psychiatric injury

Answer 28

directly involved. as long as physical harm is foreseeable, you can pass psychiatric injury.

Question 29

Page v Smith

Answer 29

all you must see is risk of physical injury not psychiatric but still pass

Question 30

primary victim 2

Answer 30

rescuers - attends to scene. may suffer psychiatric damage as a result of their experiences e.g. hillsbrough.
rescuers must fear for own safety

Question 31

white v chief constable of yorkshire

Answer 31

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

Question 32

secondary victims

Answer 32

not in personal danger but witnessed the accident or aftermath

Question 33

Alcock’s case - hillsborough

Answer 33

cases from relatives of fans killed. house of lords made qualifying criteria to pass to stop the flood gates of litigation opening

Question 34

rule 1 secondary victims

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Mcloughlin v Obrien

Answer 35

saw her family after accident in hospital before treatment. she succeeded.

Question 36

alcock rule 2

Answer 36

victim must be close to the accident in time or space

Question 37

alcock rule 3

Answer 37

victim must see the accident or aftermath with their own eyes. not enough to be told about it or see it on tv.