Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law > Tort Law > Flashcards

Tort Law Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What is a tort?

A

A tort is a civil wrong which entitles the injured party to a remedy

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

What is the purpose of damages in tort?

A

To restore victims to position before tort

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

What is negligence

A

The breach of a legal duty of care causing some recoverable damage to the claimant

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

Car crash example

A

man stopped at traffic light and a car ran into him from behind, the other driver’s negligence caused damage and he owed a duty of care to others on the road which he was in breach of by failing to apply brakes

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

Identifiers of negligence

A
  1. That there was a duty of care
  2. Duty of care has been breached
  3. Breach caused damage
  4. Damage isn’t too remote

If you meet all these you can qualify for negligence in tort

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

What is the objective of negligence?

A

-compensating victims of injury and distributing payment from claimant who sustained injury to defendant who caused it (corrective justice)

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

What doesn’t negligence do?

A

it doesn’t allocate blame, promote morality, vindicate rights or punish wrongdoers

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

What is insurance about?

A

It is about purchasing a financial product that will payout when a particular thing happens

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

What is first party insurance?

A

Insure yourself against suffering/harm (singer insuring voice)

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

What is third party insurance?

A

Provides insurance to you in case you must pay compensation a 3rd who you injure (car insurance)

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

How does insurance spread loss?

A

without it loss would be concentrated on victims but the tort of negligence shifts loss from claimant to defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Types of loss (damage)

A

physical injury, psychiatric injury, damage to property, consequential economic loss, pure economic loss, distress, physical harm (suffering some damage to the body)

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

How are damages for physical injury calculated?

A

if there is pain and suffering, loss of amenity, consequential economic loss. It aims to cover actual/prospective bodily hurt

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

What is loss of amenity?

A

Damages awarded for loss of ability to enjoy life

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

How are damages for psychiatric injury calculated?

A

calculated by pain/suffering, loss of amenity and has to go beyond distress

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

What are aggravated damages?

A

compensating victims for mental distress where injury has been caused/increased by how defendant committed the wrong or their conduct afterward

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

What are Exemplary damages?

A

oppressive/unconstitutional conduct by gov servants or conduct aimed at making profit in excess of compensation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What are death claims?

A

When a person dies as a result of negligence of the defendant

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

What happens when death claims are made?

A

3rd party affected by claims can bring claims or cause of action that would have happened if claimant were aliv would continue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

How do you qualify to make a death claim?

A

Must fall within list of dependants and must prove their financial dependent on the deceased and that the deceases would have sued for their injury if they were alive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Who can qualify for bereavement damages?

A

don’t need proof of dependency but can only be claimed by spouse, civil partner or parents of unmarried minor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is vicarious liability?

A

liability of employer for tort of employee committed in the cause of employment e.g bus driver in an accident his company will be liable/pay compensation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What doesn’t vicarious liability cover?

A
  • doesn’t cover those who are truly employed

- employer won’t be liable if the tort isn’t related to company (uni isn’t responsible if professor is in car accident)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

what is contributory negligence? What does it do?

A

allowed claimant to have a fault that has a part to play in their injury (partially contribute) and damages will be reduced according to magnitude of their fault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What is contribution?

A

Two or more parties responsible in negligence for the same damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Requesting contribution from more than one party for negligence

A

a claimant can choose to sue one defendant and request contribution from the other if they can prove their carelessness had a role in the carelessness of the the other defendant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What is a duty of care?

A

A legal obligation placed on a person to take reasonable care when performing an activity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What makes someone liable to a claimant (tort of negligence)?

A

You can only be liable to a claimant after it has been proved that there was a duty of care they owed to the claimant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Lord Atkin’s Neighbour Principle (neighbour test)

A

-used to demonstrate one’s duty of care to the other party
‘persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Two step test created in Anns v Merton (1978) (negligence)

A
  • Was there a close relationship between the parties

- If there was was there was a presumed duty of care unless defendant could come up with defense

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Caparo’s three stage test

used in novel duty cases as method of constructing legal analysis

A

(a) damage must be reasonably foreseeable as a result of the defendant’s conduct, (b) the parties must be in a relationship of proximity or neighbourhood, and (c) it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Two stage approach to Duty of Care (Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

A
  • look to see whether there is previously decided legal principle (case/common law) which determine whether duty of care is owed in situations like current case
  • if there is proof of duty of care the courts will find closest analogies in existing law
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Principles drawn from precedents (no need for stage two from Robinson case required)

A
  • Damage (physical injury, property damage)
  • Damage caused by omissions
  • Injuries caused by shock
  • Public authorities
  • Pure economic loss
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Duty of care for physical acts

A

defendant owes a duty of care to prevent all foreseeable injury caused by his/her acts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Duty of care for ‘failure to act or confer a benefit’ (omission)

A

-no liability resulting from omission unless there is a relationship of control between defendant and a third party

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Duty of care for pure economic loss

A

no liability unless defendant has assumed responsibility to claimant and the claimant has reasonably relied upon the assumption of responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What is a novel duty case?

A

Cases where the question of whether a duty of care arises has not previously been decided

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Established duty of care scenarios

A

employer/employee, driver/others on the road, doctor/patient, solicitor/client, manufacturer/consumer, parent/guardian, teacher/child

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Two main questions to judge a breach of duty case

A
  1. What is the minimum that should be expected/should have happened?
  2. What did happen?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What happens if defendant did more than the minimum level of competence expected?

A

There is no breach and claimant cannot get compensation for damages

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What is ‘res ipsa loquiter’

A

-the negligence speaks for itself

if something falls on your head it is reasonable to assume it was because of someone else’s negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What does it say in civil evidence act section 11

A

Allows us to rely on criminal convictions as evidence of breach of duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

How do we identify whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant?

A

We must ask ourselves what a ‘reasonable person’ would do

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What standard do we hold learner drivers to?

A
  • According to ‘reasonable man’ principle the learner driver is measured objectively to the care expected of an experienced/skilled river
  • According to Lord Denning; the learner driver’s ‘incompetent best is not enough’
  • inexperience/inability for adults does not dispute reasonability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What standard of care do we hold children to?

A

Children cannot meet standards expected of a ‘reasonable adult’

  • there is no defence of childhood
  • we hold them to standard of reasonable child their own age
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

What happens if a child is driving? Are they judged to standard of skilled driver or someone their own age?

A

-when a child engages in an adult activity (driving motor vehicle) they are held to the same standard as a reasonable adult because they are putting people at risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

What is an adult activity?

A
  • ‘an activity which is normally undertaken only by adults and for which qualifications are required’
  • driving a motor-vehicle is the only well established adult activity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

When might a parent be liable for acts of their children?

A

for failing to exercise proper supervision and control over the child
-parents are expected to meet standards of reasonable parents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

when is incapacity labelled as a breach of duty?

A

if you knew about a pre-exisiting incapacity that makes it unsafe for you to do something and you still negligently do it (blind person driving)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

When are you not liable for your incapacity? (breach of duty)

A
  • if the action is involuntary–> you dont have physical control of what you’re doing and so won’t be liable if you cause harm to somebody else (sleepwalking)
  • mental disorders that dont involve involuntary action are not considered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Should we expect experts of a certain skill to conform to a higher standard of care than others?

A

We judge them by the standard of an ordinary person who expresses expertise in that profession/who has that skill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

How do you decide what a reasonable skilled person would do?

A
  • expert evidence
  • if you’re a doctor a body of medical professionals should agree with your decision to show you acted at least according to what others in your profession would do
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

What is the Bolam test?

A

-it shows you what standard of care you should expect from a ‘skilled’ professional based on their expressed competence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Applying Bolam to omissions cases

A

-if you can prove a competent professional in your field would have refrained from treating patient in the same way you did there will not be liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Bolam applies to non-medical skills

A
  • applies generally to professionals
  • ski instructors judged by standard of ski instructors
  • barristers judged by standard of barristers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

How do you calculate the standard of care?

A
  • foreseeability, risk, practicality of precautions and social cost
  • as foreseeability and risk increase the standard increases
  • as practicality and risk increase standard lowers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

When do we expect reasonable person to take precautions against risks?

A

you can only be expected to take care if you know that there is a particular risk which can only happen if you can foresee that risk or know it might happen

  • if its completely unforeseeable the reasonable person will not take care against the risk
  • if cost of precautions is more than the risk then no action should reasonably be taken
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

The greater the likelihood of harm…

A

the greater the care expected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

the more socially useful the defendant’s conduct…

A

the less it will be considered unreasonable

-we don’t want to prevent something we feel is important to set standard of care and prevent risk

60
Q

Social activity responsibility and heroism act (2015)

A
  1. if you were acting for the benefit of society
  2. if you were protecting yourself/others or were acting heroically
    in these cases courts shouldn’t expect standard of care that people doing these things couldn’t meet
61
Q

Regulation and the reasonable man

A

-when regulation governs particular area these may be helpful in determining the standard of care because the reasonable person will follow them

62
Q

Scientific understanding and precaution

A
  • when science is common knowledge we would expect the defendant to be aware of this
  • the more that science suggests something is dangerous the more we need to take precautions
63
Q

What can happen when you don’t adapt to changes in Common practice? (breach of duty)

A
  • if everyone in industry is doing a particular thing it is likely that the reasonable person would do it also
  • if everyone in industry takes precautions and you don’t then you can be in breach
64
Q

What is nervous shock?

A

injuries caused by shock, they can lead to physical injury but cannot be caused by direct touching

65
Q

control mechanisms for shock cases

A
  • you must have forseeability of injury caused by shock
  • who do we owe a duty to? (Atkin’s neighbour principle)
  • actionable psychiatric injury
66
Q

Special rules for duty of care in psychiaric injury/shock?

A

-claimant must show actionable psychiatric injury, forseeability, proximity (especially for secondary victims)

67
Q

Why do special rules apply in psychiatric shock?

A
  • floodgate argument–> don’t want too many people to be able to claim for psych injury
  • crushing liability–> everyone on road can claim psych injury from witnessing car accident (not reasonable)
  • Fear of fraudulent claims–> psychiatric injuries were easier to fake but now we have advanced tests
  • seriousness of psych injury–> wasn’t taken as seriously in older cases
68
Q

Concerns over trauma in litigation for shock cases?

A

courts concerned that by allowing recovery for psych injury it could interfere with rehabilitation by forcing victims to relive their trauma and worsen it and make it harder for them to cope/recover

69
Q

What is the difference between a primary and secondary victim in shock?

A
  • primary victims are personally in fear of their lives or are traumatised by the potential injury
  • secondary victims are witnesses of traumatising events
70
Q

Qualifications for pure psychiatric injury

A

You can only claim if you suffer a recognised psych injury which will be decided by the courts and and medicine jointly e.g PTSD, reactive depression

71
Q

What about fear of injury in the future? (psychiatric shock)

A

no liability usually because the fear needs to be immediately forseeable and reasonable, there is no direct involvment

72
Q

Qualifying as a primary victim (shock)

A
  • Was it reasonable to assume that you could have been injured in the accident
  • Was it reasonable for you to assume that you could have been injured based on proximity?
73
Q

What is the ‘initial control mechanism’ for shock cases?

A
  • you must have forseeability of injury caused by shock

- who do we owe a duty to? (Atkin’s neighbour principle)

74
Q

Special rules for duty of care in psychiaric injury/shock?

A

-claimant must show actionable psychiatric injury, forseeability, proximity (especially for secondary victims)

75
Q

Why do special rules apply in psychiatric shock?

A
  • floodgate argument–> don’t want too many people to be able to claim for psych injury
  • crushing liability–> everyone on road can claim psych injury from witnessing car accident (not reasonable)
  • Fear of fraudulent claims–> psychiatric injuries were easier to fake but now we have advanced tests
  • seriousness of psych injury–> wasn’t taken as seriously in older cases
76
Q

Concerns over trauma in litigation for shock cases?

A

courts concerned that by allowing recovery for psych injury it could interfere with rehabilitation by forcing victims to relive their trauma and worsen it and make it harder for them to cope/recover

77
Q

What is the difference between a primary and secondary victim in shock?

A
  • primary victims are personally in fear of their lives or are traumatised by the potential injury
  • secondary victims are witnesses of traumatising events
78
Q

Qualifications for pure psychiatric injury

A

You can only claim if you suffer a recognised psych injury which will be decided by the courts and and medicine jointly e.g PTSD, reactive depression

79
Q

What about fear of injury in the future? (psychiatric shock)

A

no liability usually because the fear needs to be immediately forseeable and reasonable, there is no direct involvment

80
Q

Qualifying as a primary victim (shock)

A
  • Was it reasonable to assume that you could have been injured in the accident
  • Was it reasonable for you to assume that you could have been injured based on proximity?
81
Q

What is the ‘initial control mechanism’ for shock cases?

A
  • you must have forseeability of injury caused by shock

- who do we owe a duty to? (Atkin’s neighbour principle)

82
Q

Special rules for duty of care in psychiaric injury/shock?

A

-claimant must show actionable psychiatric injury, forseeability, proximity (especially for secondary victims)

83
Q

Why do special rules apply in psychiatric shock?

A
  • floodgate argument–> don’t want too many people to be able to claim for psych injury
  • crushing liability–> everyone on road can claim psych injury from witnessing car accident (not reasonable)
  • Fear of fraudulent claims–> psychiatric injuries were easier to fake but now we have advanced tests
  • seriousness of psych injury–> wasn’t taken as seriously in older cases
84
Q

Concerns over trauma in litigation for shock cases?

A

courts concerned that by allowing recovery for psych injury it could interfere with rehabilitation by forcing victims to relive their trauma and worsen it and make it harder for them to cope/recover

85
Q

What is the difference between a primary and secondary victim in shock?

A
  • primary victims are personally in fear of their lives or are traumatised by the potential injury
  • secondary victims are witnesses of traumatising events
86
Q

Qualifications for pure psychiatric injury

A

You can only claim if you suffer a recognised psych injury which will be decided by the courts and and medicine jointly e.g PTSD, reactive depression

87
Q

What about fear of injury in the future? (psychiatric shock)

A

no liability usually because the fear needs to be immediately forseeable and reasonable, there is no direct involvment

88
Q

Qualifying as a primary victim (shock)

A
  • Was it reasonable to assume that you could have been injured in the accident
  • Was it reasonable for you to assume that you could have been injured based on proximity?
89
Q

How to establish a secondary victim (shock) according to Alcock criteria

A
  • foreseeability (of any harm)
  • a close tie of love/affection
  • closeness in time/space to incident
  • perception by sight/hearing of event or consequences of event
  • psychiatric harm caused by sudden shock
90
Q

Presumed relationships with close ties of love and affection

A

parent/child, spouses, fiances, civil partners

  • any other relationship you have to prove it
  • rare for non presumed relationships to succeed
91
Q

Easiest ways to demonstrate you were close in proximity of time and space

A
  • being present at the scene of the incident at the time of the incident
  • being present at the immediate aftermath of incident
  • being there to see the victims being treated soon after the incident
92
Q

What counts as the immediate aftermath?

A
  • time where it is expected the claimant would come to the scene and see the person they have a close tie with still affected by the incident
  • if the immediate victim is already dead according to Alcock this is not sufficient
93
Q

What do you have to be close in space and time to qualify for secondary victimhood?

A

-the negligent act or the consequences of it

94
Q

Why doesn’t watching a traumatic event on tv/media satisfy the Alcock requirement of perception through unaided senses?

A
  • tv is nothing like human perception, you can zoom in and repeat and amplify sound
  • its hyperrealistic which can be more traumatising than perception through ordinary human senses
95
Q

Criteria for sudden shock

A
  • if there is a gradual buildup of psychiatric harm you can’t bring claim
  • must be a point that violent agitation of the mind causes you to go from not suffering to suffering
  • this has to take place directly because of the negligent imperilment/aftermath
96
Q

How does the assumption being of reasonably fortitude affect secondary victimhood?

A
  • if a secondary victim suffers psychiatric injury only because they are especially sensitive then they can’t bring a claim because the harm isn’t reasonably foreseeable
  • if someone of reasonable fortitude would have suffered psychiatric harm and pre-existing vulnerability makes it worse a duty of care arises and D has to compensate for ALL the claimant’s injury
97
Q

Who is a bystander?

A

an unwilling witness of a traumatic event for whom it is foreseeable may suffer psychiatric harm but they do not share a close tie of love/affection with immediate victims

98
Q

Are bystanders able to have a claim for shock?

A
  • according to Alcock they can’t

- Alcock leaves open the possibility of bystanders having a claim in exceptionally horrifying events

99
Q

Criteria for rescuers to qualify for primary/secondary victimhood

A
  • if you are in zone of danger you qualify as a primary victim and can recover for any personal injury
  • if you are not in danger zone you are a secondary victim and have to meet all of the Alcock requirements
100
Q

What is an involuntary participant?

A
  • someone involved in the chain of events that causes someone to be injured but is in no way at fault and suffers psychiatric harm due to realistic feelings of guilt
  • are able to recover
101
Q

Criteria for involuntary participant

A
  • must come from a realistic/reasonable feeling of guilt from a harm that was caused
  • must be close physical connection with the involuntary participant and the injury is suffered that they feel guilty about
102
Q

What duty of care to employers owe to employees?

A
  • employers owe duty of care to ensure a safe work environment and prevent stress at work leading to psychiatric injury
  • if its reasonably foreseeable that the conditions at work could lead to stress leading to psychiatric harm a duty may be owed to employee
103
Q

how do you qualify for psychiatric harm due to endangerment of property?

A

if you can demonstrate that it is reasonable the claimant would suffer psychiatric harm they can recover according to Attia

104
Q

What types of property count in psychiatric harm due to endangerment of property?

A
  • dog, cat, car, personal painting, house, book you’re writing
  • no need to satisfy proximity rules like in Alcock
105
Q

What are liabilities for omissions?

A

a liability for a failure to act or intervene problems occurring or failure to confer a benefit

106
Q

What are pure omissions?

A

-failures to act

107
Q

Why is there no liability in pure omissions cases?

A

-there is no duty of care to intervene to prevent someone from harm

108
Q

What is the exception to the rule of liability in pure omissions cases?

A

-there could be liability if the claimant depended on the defendant’s intervention and was left off worse because of it

109
Q

How do we determine liability in omissions cases?

A

there is no liability for pure omissions so we must determine whether the omission is an ACT
-if they are part of a negligent act

110
Q

Example of omission that would have liability

A

-failure to press brakes in a car will be treated as an act because of the foreseeability of physical damage and the omission is part of the train of events that led to the damage

111
Q

why do we have special omission rules?

A
  • harder to show you are harmed by failure to act than an actual act
  • concern that liability will force people to act in certain ways
  • don’t want to sanction people for their choice not to do something
  • if a 3rd party is liable it does not put the cost onto the person who caused the problem
112
Q

exceptions to the rule of pure omissions

A
  • D had control over 3rd party and should have forseen the likelihood of damage and taken reasonable car to avoid damage
  • D assumes positive responsibility to safeguard C (police department and inmate in custody)
  • D creates source of danger that can be forseeably sparked by 3rd party
113
Q

Examples of sufficient control for duty of care to arise for omissions

A
  • parent/school owe duty for conduct of child

- hospital for psychiatric patient if they harmed someone they were likely to

114
Q

What is the function of non-delegable duties?

A
  • a mechanism for liability for failure to act

- to ensure parties can be liable for the acts of independent contractors they hire to do work for them

115
Q

Examples of relationships in which non-delegable duties exist

A

employer/employee, prison/prisoner, hospital/patient

116
Q

What are non-delegable duties

A

-duties that if you hire someone else to perform and they don’t complete the duty will still render you liable even if you haven’t personally done anything wrong

117
Q

Requirements for non-delegable duties according to Woodland v Swimming Teacher’s Association

A
  • claimant is especially dependent
  • claimant has no control over the company handles their obligations
  • D has delegated their positive duty to a 3rd party
  • third party was negligence in their performance of the function assumed by D
  • C is under custody/care of D
118
Q

The rule for public authority (omission)

A

-if a public authority injures someone to be liable they need to prove they had control, assumed responsibility, control of property or creates source of danger which a 3rd party worsened

119
Q

According to the poole borough council case do Public authorities owe a duty of care to protect members of their area from harm?

A
  • they do now owe a duty of care because supreme courts did not deem it reasonable for the people to rely on the public authorities or to entrust them with their safety
  • they may have a duty if it meets the criteria for negligent omission
120
Q

Public authorities may be treated different if a duty of care interferes with…

A

statutory functions

-if you can prove this courts cannot impose duty of care because it makes it harder for the authority to protect people

121
Q

What was LJ Reed’s obiter dictum in Hill v West Yorks Police ?

A

police should be immune from failures in relation to investigation of crime and no DOC should arise

122
Q

What was said in terms of police liability in Michael & Ors v Chief constable?

A
  • the duty of police is owed to the entire public and they have no special relationships to have a private DOC to individuals
  • courts don’t want police priorities to be affected by being sued for negligence
123
Q

Can you claim damages through breach of HR law?

A

-right to bring damages for breach by public authority of human rights are in article 2 and 3 of HRA

124
Q

What does the Osman case say about public authorities?

A

-if they “failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk” they’re in breach of article 2 ECHR

125
Q

How do you qualify for Osman duty of care (HR)?

A
  • show real/immediate risk to life of individual

- show P.A know but failed to take measures which they were expected to

126
Q

What is pure economic loss?

A

economic loss suffered by the claimant that is not consequent upon claimants’ personal injury caused by D

127
Q

What is the rule for pure economic loss?

A

-claimant cannot recover unless D has AoR to safeguard C from suffering such loss

128
Q

Why is pure economic loss liability restricted?

A
  • tort law ranks economic interests lower than property/personal injury
  • floodgate argument
129
Q

What was J Blackburn’s reasoning in Cattle case?

A
  • C couldn’t recover because of PEL
  • if courts allowed it if a mine flooded the defendant would be liable to every single mine worker
  • bad idea
130
Q

What is relational economic loss?

A

pure economic loss that occurs when D negligently damages a 3rd party’s person/property which causes C loss by virtue of their relationship with 3rd party

131
Q

What was Lord Denning’s reasoning for denying PEL in Spartan case?

A
  • if someone is injured by road accident by negligence of another driver
  • driver would owe duty of care to the claimant themselves but not to the servant of the injured claimant who could potentially have PEL if employer is hurt
132
Q

What is the scope of DOC for PEL identfied by HoL in SAAMCO case?

A
  • HoL held the duty of D as valuers was just to provide accurate valuation
  • D was only responsible for losses that were foreseeable
  • C lost even more money because property market fell but according to HoL D was not responsible for that
  • not within the scope of duty
133
Q

What is consequential economic loss?

A

Economic loss which is consequential upon some physical harm and is recoverable without special difficulty unlike PEL

134
Q

What do you need to qualify for CEL?

A

-IF you can establish DOC for physical harm then it can be recovered easily usually

135
Q

What do you need to make a claim for property damage?

A
  • C must establish DOC owed to them
  • C had sufficient interest in the property damaged by D
  • reasonably foreseeable that D’s act would cause property damage to C
136
Q

What is the rule for REL?

A

You usually cannot recover

137
Q

How could you have actionable REL?

A

-AoR

138
Q

Why do courts not usually allow recovery for REL?

A

They do not want ‘widespread liability’ (Lord penzance)

-tort law does not recognize one person having legal compensable interest in one’s physical wellbeing

139
Q

When is there an exception to the no recovery rule of REL according to Morrison steamship?

A

‘where the plaintiff’s operations are so closely allied to the operations of the party suffering physical damage’–> it is unjust to deny them recovery because they are in a VERY similar position to the party who suffered direct damage

140
Q

What is needed for actionable PEL according to Hedley Byrne v Heller?

A
  • AoR

- Reliance

141
Q

what do you need for a qualifying AoR (pel)?

A
  • MUST be voluntary

- Must be fair, just and reasonable

142
Q

consideration questions to decide whether there is AoR

A
  • does the defendant have or hold themselves to have special skills?
  • is the interaction betwen parties formal or informal?
  • does D make representations to D to the effect that C can entrust the matter to them
143
Q

What statement could rule out AoR? (PEL)

A

-Statements which disclaim responsibility will almost always lead courts to decide there is no AoR

144
Q

According to Calvert v William Hill Credit Ltd what is another way outside of AoR to find DOC?

A

-if someone vulnerable asked for your help and you are aware they are vulnerable and will likely rely on your advice you probably owe DOC

145
Q

How did claimants win in White v Jones if there was no reliance?

A
  • according to lord Goff the lawyers were negligent but the person they were negligent to was dead and so there is an extended AoR
  • Lorde BR said a special relationship was created by lawyers assuming responsibility for their interests and because of the special relationship the case is not reliant on reliance
146
Q

How do you determine whether there is a duty of care?

A
  1. Harm must be a “reasonably foreseeable” result of the defendant’s conduct;
  2. A relationship of “proximity” must exist between the defendant and the claimant;
  3. It must be “fair, just and reasonable” to impose liability.

Law (7 decks)

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