tort law Flashcards
what does the latin word tort mean
crooked or twisted
what is corrective justice
we do not unreasonably intefere with other people or property
what are the 2 elements of corrective justice
fault and causation
how is corretive justice achieved
BY compensation
what is the general focus of tort of neligence
amke people of damages
what is negligence
refers to a tort where injury or loss is caused to the injured party by the tortfeasors fsi;lure to keep a legal duty to take reaosnable care of which compensation is sought.
established duty pof care
one road to another
- doctor to patient#
- emplpuet o employee
manufacturer tyo consumer
- teacher to pupil
donoghue v stevenson
etsablsiehd the neighbour pricniple
lord atkin in donoighue v stevensonb
you mjst take reaosmable care to avoud acts or omissiosn which you can reaosnably forsee would be likely to injrue your neighbout.
DUTY OF CARE - Modernt est
caparo industries plc bv dickman et al
modern test duty of care reuwirments
reaosnabvle foresight of ahrm to the c
sufficient proximity of relaitonship between claimant and d
that is fair, just reaosnbale to impsoe a duty
ROBINSON V KILVERT 1889
- d carried on a business of amkign paper boxed wh9ich required warm dry atmoshpere.
- d oeprated from the basement of theirt premises and rented out the groudn floor to c
c 8used the premises for storage of brown paper
heat from d’s business damaged the brown paper belognign to c.
held d was not laible bnecause the damage was due tot he special sentitivity of the paper and therefore was not forseeable.
page v smith
chronic fatigue syndrom. held that some perosnaly injury was forseable. it did not matter whether injury was physcial or psychaitricull principle take your victim as u find him.
Steel v nram
clarified that the tripartie caparo duty of care is not how the tort of engligence shoudl be dveeloped.
sensitive claimants
haley v london electrocoty bpard 1965/. held it was fprseeable that a blidn perosn mgih walk down the street as they shoudl be given reaosmable proteciton.
taylor v glasgow
- a boy of 7 aste soem berried from one fo the shrubs
- it was poisonous, he died.
- turned out trhe shrub was unfenced. no warnign signs were placed.
held- glasgow co. was liable.
11
tomlinson v conglewton bc 2004
- c broke his neck after diving in a shallow lake owned by d
- clear wanring signs had been placed
- held risk arose out of the action of c nto the state of the premises.
bourhill v young 1943
0 motocyclist died at scene
- pregnant woman got stillbirth
h of l held no duty pf care
- p was merley a bystander in no physical danger
injuries not reoasnbaly forseeable/
hedley v bryne v heller 1964
- cases of pire economic loss
- potential fort statmenbts to have wide disseminaiton and imapoct]-
- forseeab9i;y anf proximity could be adapted
clavert v william hill 2008
- c had a gmablign addiction
- he regsietred under d’s self execusion policy
- d’s agent lost c’s infor andf a
lowed c to continue to betting - c lost moneyu
- held d fialerdf in theit duty of ca5e to c, hwoiever no cauxsation has c would have lost his moeny elsewhere
anns v merton lbs
