Tort Law - Introduction to Negligence Flashcards
What are the requirements for negligence?
D owed a duty of care to the ‘foreseeable victim’, the care was breached, C suffered relevant damage, the breach caused the damage and a test of proximity
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills judgment
Donoghue applies further than just sealed products in opaque containers - did product reach V with the same defect as when it left the manufacturer?
Griffiths v Arch Engineering judgment
Still DoC even if there was reasonable possibility of inspection by a 3rd party
Stennet v Hancock general
‘By-blow’ victim
Stennet v Hancock judgment
Duty owed even to a ‘by-blow’ victim, not just consumer
‘By-blow’ victim
Stennet v Hancock
Palsgraf v Long Island Railway general
Fireworks, train, scales
Fireworks, train, scales
Palsgraf v Long Island Railway
Palsgraf v Long Island Railway judgment
Not foresseable victim - irrelevant if guards may have owed a DoC to others around
Hay v Young general
Pregnant, HEARD collision, stillborn
Hay v Young judgment
Not foreseeable victim
What do L&O argue about Hay v Young?
Court used foreseeability to cover influence of policy - shock-induced damage was problematic then
Pregnant, heard collision, stillborn
Hay v Young
Haley v London Electricity Board general
Blind man, excavation
Haley v London Electricity Board judgment
DoC to ensure safety of all persons reasonably foreseeable, including the blind and infirm
L&O on Haley v London Electricity Board
Difficult to reconcile with Hay - are pregnant people less encountered? Could show gender bias in tort (Mitchell)
Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976
P created ‘foreseeable victim’ - child cannot bring claim against mother for tortious conduct relating to driving
What Act showed P creating a ‘foreseeable victim’?
Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills on breach of DoC
Malleability of fault concept, as applied even though manufacturer had done all that could be reasonably expected
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating general
Pleural placques
Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating judgment
Need to be ‘worse off’ and change cannot be trivial
Why was the case of Rothwell v Chemical exceptional?
Courts had to consider if the injury constituted legal harm, rather than just being about proof
What judge in what case suggested that for damage in negligence, C needs to be ‘worse off’ and change cannot be trivial?
Lord Hoffman in Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating
Evans v Triplex Safety Glass general
Windscreen, shards