Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Legal Knowledge MCQ > Tort Law > Flashcards

Tort Law Flashcards

1
Q

What are the elements needed for negligence

A

Duty of care, breach of duty, the breach cause the damage (and there was no break in the chain of causation, defences)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What does tort law aim to do?

A

Put C back to where they were prior to the tort

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Give three examples of tort

A

Negligence, nuisance and defamation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the legal action time limit for tort law given by the Limitation Act 1980?

A

3 years

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is a tortfeasor

A

A person who commits a tort

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does tortious mean

A

Constitutes a tort

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What does tortuous mean

A

Complex/full of twists

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Neighbour Principle case?

A

Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What is the neighbour principle

A

‘You owe a doc to your neighbour, someone who could foreseeably be injured by your act/omission’.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

True or false - you still need forseeability if the tort is one of strict liability

A

False

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the Caparo (1990) test?

A

Used when no legal DoC-

  • Reasonable foreseeability? – Bourhill (1943)
  • Sufficient relationship of proximity? -ie Evans 1936 – windshield bought too long ago for liability
  • Fair, just and reasonable? – Hill 1989 (police duty of care)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What does Robinson 2018 tell us about the fair just and reasonable clause?

A

Public authorities are subject to the same liabilities in tort law as private individuals. They are under a duty not to cause the public harm via their own actions, but are not under a duty to prevent harm from third parties. The Police are not exempt from claims in negligence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What does the East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent and another (1940) case say about public authorities and omissions?

A

PA are generally NOT LIABLE for omissions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is consequential economic loss

A

A consequence of an effect (ie consequence of an injury, like physio bills)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is Pure Economic Loss

A

Where the loss isn’t connected to the PI of the claimant or property damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Is the scope for Pure Economic Loss limited?

A

YES- can usually only be claimed if a contract is involved

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What exemptions exists where you CAN claim pure economic loss without a contract?

A
  • Close relationship - for example a solicitor and beneficiary relationship under a will.-
  • See Ross v Caunters (1980). Relationship is one of trust therefore negligent advice may result in intended beneficiary losing out on inheritance
  • Negligent statements – the HoL held in Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) that there can be a duty of care for financial loss caused by a negligent statement, where there is a “special relationship”. (This case involved bankers and their clients)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

When can you claim for psychiatric injury?

A

C has to prove serious psych illness. If a claimant suffers pure psych injury and no phys harm then a distinction has to be made between being a primary victim or a secondary one (usually a witness).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the distinction between a primary and secondary victim?

A
  • A primary victim is a person who was under actual threat of bodily harm or reasonably believed themselves to be so, as a result of the negligent event
  • A secondary victim is a person who suffers a psychiatric illness as a result of witnessing an accident or its ‘immediate aftermath’.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

True or false- A rescuer who suffers PI as a result at the scene of the accident can be classed as a primary victim IF they were or reasonably believed themselves to be in danger of physical injury.

A

True- White v Chief Constable South Yorkshire (1999)

21
Q

What does the aw say about the standard of care given by a skilled person?

A

If a person holds themselves out to have special skills the standard is that of a person having those skills

22
Q

What risk factors must the court take into account when deciding the element of a reasonable person of the claim

A
  • Probability of harm
  • Potential seriousness of harm
  • Precautions/practicalities taken to prevent harm
  • Value to society of what the defendant was attempting to achieve
23
Q

What are the 2 other ways a breach of duty can be proved?

A
  • s11 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 provides that a conviction for a criminal offence shall be proof that an offence was committed, so, e.g. the claimant may rely on the defendant’s conviction for careless driving in a road accident to prove negligence in a civil claim for damages
  • Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). The claimant may be able to prove that defendant was in breach but may not be able to prove exactly how injury was caused. The principle relies on the absence of knowledge. Burden of proof is reversed so the defendant will have to prove that a duty was not breached. Example of this is if a surgeon left an instrument in a patient for example.
24
Q

How do you prove that the breach caused the damage?

A

But for test - but for that breach, there would be no damage.

25
Q

How do you prove causation?

A

The damage must not be too remote in that it must have been reasonably foreseeable and it is an objective test (ie a reasonable person would see a waitress spilling hot coffee on a client would cause burns)

26
Q

What is the Eggshell Skull Principle

A

The defendant must take the victim as they find them so will be liable even if they suffer from a greater susceptibility or weakness to harm than a normal person

27
Q

What are intervening acts in causation?

A

The court has to decide if a new intervening act broke the chain of causation. If this is the case then the defendant will only be liable for the injury or harm caused by his negligent acts prior to the intervening act. Regarding the final loss the claimant may take action against the third party.

28
Q

Give 4 examples of defences to negligence

A

Contributory negligence
Consent
Illegality
Consumer Protection Act 1987

29
Q

What is contributory negligence?

A

A partial defence- reduces % of damages D is liable for. How much C contributed to his own injuries.

30
Q

What is consent?

A

A complete defence. D is not liable for an injury where C consented ie sports when the sporting match follows all the rules.

31
Q

What is illegality?

A

A complete defence. A claimant cannot usually recover damages for injury or loss when the clamant was themselves engaged in illegal actions, as a matter of public policy.

32
Q

What is the Consumer Protection Act 1987

A

Claimant can take action against a defendant for a defective product where loss has been suffered in contract, tort or under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Statutory duty, so liability is strict.

33
Q

What does Rylands v Fletcher 1968 say about occupiers?

A

Strict liability of the occupier being liable for damage regardless of fault.

(1) The D brings onto their land for their own purposes something likely ‘to do mischief’ if it escapes
(2) And which represents a non-natural use of land
(3) And causes foreseeable damage of the relevant type

Then that damage is their fault

34
Q

Define ‘escape’

A

The substance/ item causing damage must actually move from the D’s premises to a place beyond their control or occupation.

35
Q

What does the case of Standard v Gore (2012) say about R V F?

A

Tyres stored on D’s land caught fire and destroyed the D’s premises and the C’s premises.

However, the claim failed.While the fire had spread from the D’s land to the C’s land, the tyres themselves had not escaped.

36
Q

Here is an example of the R v F rule. How would you answer it?

You act for the manufacturer of explosives used in warfare, located on an industrial estate. There is a small explosion at the factory that was not caused by the client, and bits of rubble and debris are blown over the retail park which is next to the factory. No one is hurt, but one potential claimant (one of the shops) has contacted your clients, seeking money to repair their roof and windows, which were damaged by bits of the rubble.
Is your client liable in tort for this damage?

A

The making of explosives is likely to do mischief and it is likely to be held to be a non-natural use of land.

The debris from the explosives has “escaped” and caused foreseeable harm to the shop owner.

This therefore meets the rule in Rylands v Fletcher.

37
Q

Here’s an example of Pure Economic Loss. How would you answer it?

Fraud and Co, a firm of accountants and auditors, were employed to prepare the accounts and balance sheet of LotsofCash plc, knowing the accounts were to be sent to Bigboy, a private investor, who was thinking of buying a majority shareholding in LotsofCash plc.

The accounts were negligently prepared and showed the company as financially stable, whereas in fact the opposite was true and the company had large debts outstanding.
Bigboy showed the accounts to his friend Sidekick. Bigboy purchased £500,000 worth of shares and Sidekick purchased £75,000 worth of shares.

Within six months, LotsofCash plc went into liquidation and both Bigboy and Sidekick lost their investments.

Advise Bigboy and Sidekick on the likelihood of them succeeding in their actions against Fraud and Co.

A
  • It may be possible to claim for pure economic loss where there has been a negligent misstatement, Hedley Byrne v Heller (1964) but there must be a ‘special relationship’ between the parties, Caparo v Dickman (1990).
  • In order to succeed the claimant must show that the defendant knew that the statement would be communicated to the claimant (either a named or unnamed individual or an identifiable group of persons).
  • The advice was given specifically in connection with an identifiable transaction or transactions of a particular kind.
  • The defendant reasonably anticipated that the claimant was likely to rely on the statement for the purpose of the transaction without seeking further independent advice.
  • Fraud and Co were aware that the accounts were being sent to Bigboy who was thinking to invest. Provided they reasonably anticipated that the claimant was likely to rely on the statement (and Bigboy did rely on it) then Bigboy may have a claim. Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel Bank (1991), Sebry v Companies House (2015).
  • There appears to be no special relationship between Sidekick and Fraud and Co and therefore Sidekick will not be successful in an action for negligent misstatement,. James McNaughten v Hicks (1991).
38
Q

Can you claim for PEL when there has been a negligent misstatement?

A

Yes- Hedley Byrne 1964

39
Q

What does Caparo 1990 say about PEL and the two parties

A

There must be a special relationship

40
Q

Which act introduced Contributory Negligence as a defence?

A

Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

41
Q

What is a strict liability offence?

A

Strict liability offences are specific acts or omissions that automatically involve legal liability, even without proof of negligence or intent. These offences are usually considered inherently hazardous or pose significant risk to public safety, making it crucial to hold accountable those who engage in such activities.

The following are some general characteristics of strict liability offences:

No requirement to prove intent or negligence
Automatically imposed liability upon the commission of a prohibited act or omission
Usually involve inherently hazardous or risk-filled activities

42
Q

What are the 4 duties an employer must provide to their staff?

A

Duty to provide competent staff

Duty to provide adequate material

Duty to provide a proper system of work and supervision

Duty to provide a safe place of work

43
Q

What is the measure of ‘cost of cure’ in damages

A

The amount required to rectify or correct a breach of contract

44
Q

On what basis can a claimant claim a right to withhold inspection of a letter

A

A letter is subject to litigation privilege - litigation privilege protects confidential communications between parties and their lawyers if created for the dominant purpose of ongoing litigation

45
Q

What is vicarious liability

A

Vicarious liability is when a supervisory party is liable for the negligent actions of a third party for whom they are responsible.

46
Q

True or false- vicarious liability will exist if the employee’s act is sufficiently connected to his employment

A

true

47
Q

When can contrib neg not be claimed

A

When the person’s injuries were not the cause/contributed to the injury

48
Q

Can damages be claimed from someone who did not owe you a direct duty of care

A

No

Legal Knowledge MCQ (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions