tort law Flashcards
what is the 3 stage test (caparo) for duty of care?
1) foreseeability of harm (reasonable person)
2) relationship of sufficient proximity
3) must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty
what does a learner driver owe a duty of care - what is the standard? to not cause….
owe a duty of care not to cause reasonably foreseeable harm = all road users owe other road users a duty of care
what are the 5 exceptions to the rule on omissions (tort law)?
1) statutory duty
2) contractual duty
3) D has sufficient control over the C
4) D assumes responsibility for the C
5) D creates a risk
what are the 4 exceptions to the rule that there is no duty for failing to prevent a third party from causing harm?
1) sufficient proximity between D and C
2) sufficient proximity between D and third party
3) D created the danger
4) risk was on D’s premises
do the ambulance owe a duty of care?
yes they owe a duty of care to respond to 999 call within a REASONABLE time
do the fire brigade owe a duty of care?
no - but if they go to a fire they owe a duty of care not to make the situation worse via a positive act
do the police owe a duty of care?
no they do not owe a duty of care to respond to emergency calls
does a coastguard owe a duty of care?
no, they dont owe a duty of care to rescue, but if they do attempt to rescue then they owe a duty not to make the situation worse
does a doctor owe a duty of care to a patient?
yes, because once they accept the patient for treatment then medical staff must provide care and skill expected of them.
what is the standard that medical professionals are required to inform the risks to their patients?
they are required to inform of any material risks involved in recommended treatment
what is a material risk?
it is one that a reasonable person in the patients position would likely attach significance to, or the doctor should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would attach significance to
what is the Bolam test professional standard?
standard of the ordinary reasonable man exercising and professing to have that skill
what is the standard required of a child?
standard is that of the reasonable child of the D’s age carrying out that act
as part of the Bolam test when has a D not fallen below the standard?
a professional is not guilty of negligence if they acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional opinion. not necessary for technique to be widely adopted, as long as a reasonable body supports it
how is the standard of care altered for a person who has illness or a disability?
if they were aware of the impairment then they are held to the reasonable man test
if not aware then standard is of a reasonable competent …. who is unaware that he is suffering a conduction that impairs him.
what does likelihood of harm mean? (bolton v stone)
the more likely someone is to get injured the more likely there will be a breach
eg, reasonable person wouldn’t have guarded against such a small risk
what does magnitude of harm mean? (Paris)
if any injury that may occur would be serious, greater care will be needed than if the risk was a more minor injury
what does practicality of precautions mean? (Latimer)
necessary to ascertain how easily the risk could have been avoided and to balance the cost and practicality of these precautions against the severity of the risk. D need only act reasonably = if it is unreasonable to require them to take necessary precautions, even against clearly foreseeable risk then the court will not impose a duty
what does benefit of the D’s conduct mean? (watt)
the value of society of the D’s activity is a factor the courts consider. if D has taken a risk with the aim of preserving or protecting life, limb or property then this may be justified.
(potential benefits to safety are weighed against any possible damage that may result if the risk is taken)
in a professional negligence case if it concludes that the practice is commonplace but it is not logical - has the D breached their duty?
yes, if the opinion doesnt withstand logical analysis then the D is in breach of duty (Bolitho)
what is factual causation?
but for test = on the balance of probabilities, but for the D’s breach of duty would the C have suffered their loss at that time and in that way
when do you use the material contribution test?
cumulative causes = when there is more than one cause of the C’s loss and the causes were acting together cumulatively to cause the loss.
the exact contribution of each factor cannot be definitely isolated.
what is the material contribution test?
more than negligible contrition to the loss (Bennington)
operating cumulatively together
what test do you use for mesothelioma and lung cancer caused by asbestos cases? (industrial cases)
material increase in risk test
what is the material increase in risk test?
C needs to show D’s breach materially increased the risk of harm suffered by D
(only for asbestos cases)
what types of causes need to occur to apply the material contribution test?
sequential contribution causes and simultaneous cumulative causes
what type of loss can loss of chance be argued?
when the loss is pure economic loss
what is apportionment?
when there is multiple tortious factors that have caused the loss, it divides liability between the Ds in a way that produces a practical result, providing compensation to C whilst recognising the respective fault go the Ds.
in mestholemia cases how are negligent employers held (when there are multiple sufficient causes)?
they are jointly and severally liable - any or all of the negligent employers who exploded C to asbestos will be liable for C for whole sum of damages.
if the second event is tortious - what is the liability for the first D and the second D?
first D is liable for the original damage past the point of the 2nd event. second D is liable for any additional damage
if the second event is naturally occurring - what is the D’s liability?
D is liable for damages only up until the natural event
if the second D hasnt caused any additional damage - what is their liability?
they are not liable
what are the 3 types of novus actus events? (intervening acts)
1) acts of god
2) acts of third party
3) acts of C
what must an act of god be for it to break the chain in causation?
it must be an exceptional natural event
what must an act of a third party be for it to break the chain in causation?
it must be high unforeseeable
what must an act of a third party (medical treatment) be for it to break the chain in causation?
it must be so gross and egregious as to be unforeseeable (as it doesnt normally break the chain of causation)
what must an act of C be for it to break the chain in causation?
must be highly unreasonable (normally dealt with under contributory negligence)
for the law on remoteness is it necessary for D to foresee the exact sequence of events that led to the damage?
no it is not necessary, instead once the type of damage is reasonably foreseeable then it is not necessary for D to forsee the exact sequence of events that led to the damage
what does the thin skull rule say?
D is liable for all reasonably foreseeable harm caused by their negligence, even if V has a pre-existing condition that exacerbates the injuries.
does the thin skull rule apply to economic loss?
yes it does, D must take the C as they find them, including their financial vulnerabilities. D is liable for the full extent of C’s losses, even if those losses are greater due to C’s financial position.
what must the D show in order to establish a defence in consent?
-had capacity to give valid consent to the risks
- had full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risks (subjective)
- agreed to the risk of injury (subjective); and
- agreed voluntary
what is the doctrine of contributory negligence?
if C fails to take reasonable steps for their own safety and this failure contributes to the damage they suffer, their damages can be reduced accordingly
what is the rule in emergencies on C’s actions?
in emergency situations, the actions of C are judges on what a reasonable person would do in that situation
what is the rule if injuries are caused by direct consequence of participating in illegal activities?
when injuries are a direct consequence of participating in illegal activities, claims for damages are typically barred to avoid inconsistency in the law and harm to the integrity of the legal system.