tort law Flashcards
negligent misstatement by the defendants
There is a claim in the tort of negligence against the customer’s bank. The company has suffered pure economic loss (in this case, financial loss which does not flow from damage to the claimant’s person or property). The general rule is that no duty of care is owed in respect of pure economic loss. There is an exception to this rule for pure economic loss caused by negligent statements where there is a special relationship between the defendant and claimant. The following conditions need to be established for a special relationship to arise: (1) the advice is required for a purpose made known to the defendant, (2) the defendant knows that the advice will be communicated to the claimant and will be relied on, (3) the claimant must have relied on the information and (4) it must have been reasonable for the claimant to do so. Here, these conditions appear to be satisfied, so it is likely that a special relationship will be established and a duty of care owed. The facts say that the bank acted negligently, so breach of duty is established and it is clear that the breach caused the company’s loss. (
negligence : psychiatric harm
The claimant can recover damages for her PTSD. She has suffered psychiatric harm without physical impact. As someone in the actual area of danger created by the defendant’s negligence, she is a primary victim. As a primary victim, she is owed a duty of care in respect of her psychiatric harm, provided that there was a foreseeable risk of physical injury to her, which the traffic accident establishes. It also is clear that the duty has been breached (the defendant was negligent) and that the breach caused her damage (the PTSD was caused by the shock of the accident).
Question
A man sees that a house on his street is on fire. He grabs a hosepipe and sprays water on the fire in an attempt to extinguish it and rescue the house from further damage. Whilst doing so, he accidentally sprays a jet of water on his neighbour’s car. This causes damage to an electric component in the engine which will be expensive to repair.
The man likely is not liable. The man may owe a duty of care to his neighbour, but he is not likely in breach of that duty because the social utility of his actions in fighting the fire will be taken into account, meaning he likely did not fall below a reasonable standard of care.
false imprisonment
The solicitor’s claim is unlikely to succeed. For a successful claim in false imprisonment, the defendant’s actions in confining the claimant must be intentional. This is not satisfied because the guard did not know the solicitor was locked in the building.
A farmer makes a haystack with hay that is not properly dry. The stack later catches fire and causes severe burns to a neighbour who comes to help fight the fire. Evidence shows that bacterial action in the damp hay had caused the stack to heat up and ignite. Some local landowners were aware of the danger of storing damp hay in a stack, but the farmer himself was not aware of the risk.
In an action by the injured neighbour against the farmer in the tort of negligence, which of the following is true?
The farmer owed his neighbour a duty of care, and he will be in breach of that duty if he fell below the standard of care to be expected of a reasonable person in his position. The burden of proving breach of duty is on the neighbour as claimant.
An employer has two employees, X and Y, who work together. Recently, X very carelessly switched on a machine as Y was cleaning it, causing Y to suffer a serious injury. Prior to this incident X had no previous record of any kind of careless behaviour. The employer can prove that it checked X’s qualifications before employing him and provided regular safety training during his employment. An expert’s report on the machine shows that there was no defect in the machine, and it would have been safe if used properly.
In a claim by Y against the employer to recover damages for the injury caused by X, which of the following statements best describes the outcome?
The employer is liable to Y. X has committed the tort of negligence against Y. This tort was committed during the course of X’s employment (on the facts, there was a sufficiently close connection between the employment and the tort). Therefore, the employer is vicariously liable to Y for X’s tort.
In general, anb employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee In the scope of their employment
A woman borrowed a car from a friend to drive on a motoring holiday. The woman packed her luggage into the car. She then left the car in a car park but failed to pay for a ticket giving her the right to park there. Whilst she was away, a lorry driver crashed into the car. The car was so badly damaged that it was unusable. The woman had to hire a replacement car for the remainder of her motoring holiday. Also, all of her luggage which was in the car was destroyed and she had to spend a substantial amount on replacing it.
In a claim by the woman against the lorry driver, which of the following statements is correct?
Responses
The woman can recover for the cost of her luggage. Damage to property which did not belong to the claimant is classed as pure economic loss and cannot be recovered. So, the woman cannot recover for the damage to the car and hire of a replacement because the car did not belong to her. However, she can recover for the cost of replacing the luggage because this is property which did belong to her, so the cost of replacing it is not pure economic loss.
occupier liability act
The landowner owes the lady the duty owed to lawful visitors. The landowner has control over the garden and so is the occupier. The lady who fell entered the garden with permission and so is a lawful visitor. The damage was caused by the state of the premises. Hence, the duty of the occupier to his lawful visitors in respect of damage caused by the state of the premises is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. It is a duty to take reasonable care to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose.
occupier liability act
The landowner owes the lady the duty owed to lawful visitors. The landowner has control over the garden and so is the occupier. The lady who fell entered the garden with permission and so is a lawful visitor. The damage was caused by the state of the premises. Hence, the duty of the occupier to his lawful visitors in respect of damage caused by the state of the premises is governed by the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. It is a duty to take reasonable care to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the permitted purpose.
A garden centre stored herbicide in barrels. One of the barrels suddenly split open without warning, causing herbicide to leak out. The herbicide was washed by a heavier than expected rain onto a neighbour’s property, causing extensive damage to the neighbour’s vegetable garden and fruit trees.
If the neighbour brings an action against the manufacturer of the barrel, which of the following states the manufacturer’s best defence?
The manufacturer’s best defence is that the garden centre’s storage of herbicide was not a reasonably expected use of the barrels. A manufacturer may be strictly liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for damage caused by defective products. The claimant need not show fault, but must show that the product wasn’t safe for a use to which the product might reasonably be expected to be put. The manufacturer would have a defence if it shows that the garden centre’s storage of herbicide in the barrels was not a reasonably expected use of the barrels.
A garden centre stored herbicide in barrels. One of the barrels suddenly split open without warning, causing herbicide to leak out. The herbicide was washed by a heavier than expected rain onto a neighbour’s property, causing extensive damage to the neighbour’s vegetable garden and fruit trees.
If the neighbour brings an action against the manufacturer of the barrel, which of the following states the manufacturer’s best defence?
The manufacturer’s best defence is that the garden centre’s storage of herbicide was not a reasonably expected use of the barrels. A manufacturer may be strictly liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 for damage caused by defective products. The claimant need not show fault, but must show that the product wasn’t safe for a use to which the product might reasonably be expected to be put. The manufacturer would have a defence if it shows that the garden centre’s storage of herbicide in the barrels was not a reasonably expected use of the barrels.
A boy hit his ball over the fence into a neighbour’s garden. The boy asked the neighbour for permission to enter her garden. She agreed but warned him not to go beyond a fence near the bottom of the garden because the garden beyond that was in a dangerous condition and he could be hurt. When he entered the garden, the boy saw that his ball had landed beyond the fence, so he climbed over it. As the boy bent down to retrieve the ball, he brushed against an exposed electric wire hidden by an overgrown bush. He received a shock and sustained burns. The exposed electric wire was known to the neighbour.
What is the likely result if the boy sues the neighbour?
The neighbour is not liable. Although the boy had permission to enter the garden, he became a trespasser when he exceeded that permission by climbing over the fence. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 therefore applies. An occupier owes a duty of care to a trespasser provided she is aware of the danger, and that the trespasser may come into the vicinity of it, and the danger is one against which it would, in all the circumstances, be reasonable to expect her to offer protection. If these conditions are satisfied, the occupier’s duty is to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger. The Act provides that the duty may be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, such as giving warning of the danger concerned or discouraging persons from incurring the risk. On the facts, the occupier may owe the boy a duty of care. However, she appears to have discharged that duty by warning the boy not to go beyond the fence because it was dangerous and he could be hurt.
A boy hit his ball over the fence into a neighbour’s garden. The boy asked the neighbour for permission to enter her garden. She agreed but warned him not to go beyond a fence near the bottom of the garden because the garden beyond that was in a dangerous condition and he could be hurt. When he entered the garden, the boy saw that his ball had landed beyond the fence, so he climbed over it. As the boy bent down to retrieve the ball, he brushed against an exposed electric wire hidden by an overgrown bush. He received a shock and sustained burns. The exposed electric wire was known to the neighbour.
What is the likely result if the boy sues the neighbour?
The neighbour is not liable. Although the boy had permission to enter the garden, he became a trespasser when he exceeded that permission by climbing over the fence. The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 therefore applies. An occupier owes a duty of care to a trespasser provided she is aware of the danger, and that the trespasser may come into the vicinity of it, and the danger is one against which it would, in all the circumstances, be reasonable to expect her to offer protection. If these conditions are satisfied, the occupier’s duty is to take reasonable care to see that the trespasser is not injured by the danger. The Act provides that the duty may be discharged by taking such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, such as giving warning of the danger concerned or discouraging persons from incurring the risk. On the facts, the occupier may owe the boy a duty of care. However, she appears to have discharged that duty by warning the boy not to go beyond the fence because it was dangerous and he could be hurt.
A landowner planned to have a new storage facility constructed on his land. He decided to site it immediately next to the boundary with his neighbour. When complete, he used it to store a large quantity of industrial chemicals in plastic drums. Without anyone’s knowledge, the plastic of the drums suddenly became very brittle when the weather turned sharply cold, and they quickly cracked and began to leak. The leaking chemicals poured out of the drums and directly onto the neighbour’s land, causing serious contamination. Evidence showed that the sudden brittleness of the plastic drums could not have been detected even with careful inspection.
In relation to a claim against the landowner by the neighbour whose land was contaminated, which of the following statements is correct?
The neighbour may have a successful claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. The landowner has gathered on his land something likely to cause harm if it escapes (the chemicals). Storage of large quantities of industrial chemicals is likely to be a non-natural use of the land. The chemicals have escaped and caused damage to the neighbour. Therefore, the neighbour is likely to have a successful claim under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher. Liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher is strict, so the landowner can be liable despite the fact that the weakened condition of the plastic drums could not have been discovered. Therefore
A boy mowing his lawn with an electric mower noticed a strong vibration from the engine but continued to mow. The engine housing suddenly broke apart and pieces flew off the lawnmower. One piece struck the boy in the head, seriously injuring him. The boy’s mother, who was out shopping, came home several hours later and was told about the accident. That evening she visited him in hospital and was so distressed that she fainted. She was subsequently diagnosed with an anxiety disorder brought about by the incident. A later investigation showed that a negligent repair by a local mechanic caused the engine housing to shatter. The mother brought a claim against the mechanic, seeking recovery for the psychiatric harm she suffered.
Which of the following statements best describes the mechanic’s liability?
Responses
The mechanic is not liable because the mother was away when the accident occurred. The mother has suffered psychiatric harm without physical impact. She cannot establish that the mechanic owed her a duty of care in respect of such harm. She is not owed a duty of care as a primary victim because she was not in the area of danger. As a bystander witnessing the injury to her son, she is a secondary victim. For a duty of care to be owed to her as a secondary victim, she must suffer from a medically diagnosed psychiatric condition (which she does). She must also satisfy all of the following: (1) there must be a close tie of love and affection between the claimant and the person injured by the defendant; (2) the claimant must have been present at the accident or its immediate aftermath; (3) the claimant must have witnessed the events with her own senses; and (4) it must be reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal fortitude in the position of the claimant would suffer a psychiatric injury. As she was away shopping at the time of the accident, she was not present to witness the accident with her own senses. So, no duty of care is owed to her.
