tort law Flashcards
liable
judges decisions that the case against defendant is proved so defendant should pay compensation
civil law
law concerned with relationship between individuals
claimant
person who suffered loss or damage and is bringing a claim for compensation
defendant
person who caused loss or damage
damages
payment of money using compensation
injunctions
order of court to stop doing something e.g. stop making noise after 10pm
strict liability
civil action where fault of defendant does not need to be proved
advantages of strict liability
simpler and cheaper for claimant to prove as doesnt require evidence as to why action happened
consent and con neg
defendant can raise a defence and dispute claimants case and suggest claimant wholly or partly caused their own injury
negligence test
failing to do something which the reasonable person would do
case for negligence
Blythe v birmingham waterworks co
what needed for negligence
duty
breach
damage
duty of care-neighbour principle
must take reasonable steps to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour
case for neighbour principle
donoghue v stevenson
who is your neighbour
so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably have had them in contemplation as being so affected when i am directing my mind to the acts or omissions
caparo v dickman point of law
negligence claim will only succeed if 3 hurdles can be passed
caparo v dickman test
1.is damage foreseeable
2.is there proximity between parties
3.is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty
foreseeability test
objective test-would a reasonable person in d situation foresee that someone in claimants position may be injured
case for foreseeability/objective test
donoghue v stevenson
what is involved in duty of care?
reasonably foreseeable harm
proximity between parties
fair just and reasonable to impose a duty
case where proximity didnt work
bourhill v young-no sufficient relationship
case where proximity worked
mcloughlin v o brien-close relationship
case for faur just and reasonableness
kent v griffiths
factors affect reasonable man standard
special characteristics of the defendant
special characteristics of the claimant
size of the risk
have practical precautions been taken
benefits of taking risk?
special characteristics of the defendant?
meant to be reasonably competent at what they are doing
case for special characteristics of defendant
wells v cooper-carpeneter
special characteristics of claimant
reasonable man takes more care when the situation demands it
case for special characteristics of the claimant
paris v stepney borough council-council didnt provide goggles for mechanics shouldve taken care of one eyed mechanic
size of the risk
reasonable takes more care when there is greater risk but doesnt take precautions against highly unlikely events
case for size of risk
hayley v london electrical board-blind man missed sign indicating manhole and fell down it
have all practical precautions been taken
haley v london electrical board
reasonable precautions do not always prevent injury
benefits of taking risk case
watt v hertfordshire
what does damage mean
causation
2 parts to damage
causation in fact
remoteness
but for test case
barnett v chelsea and kensington hospital
remoteness of damage-reasonably foreseeable test
wagon mound-king of damage must be foreseeable
type of injury foreseeable case
hughes v lord advocate
hughes v lord advocate case
paraffin lamp left unatteneded in manhole and 8 year old boys climbed into it and suffered burns-injury was foreseeable but explosion wasnt
Codification
Bringing together all law relating to an area under one act
Consolidation
Brings all statute law into one act
Statute for consolidation
Education act 1996
Repeal
Removal of obsolete laws
Law that has been repealed
Ola 84
