Tort Law - Paper 2 Section B Flashcards

Question 1

Q

negligence

Answer

A

can be personal injury and damadges
only liable if;
.1. the defendant owes the claimant a duty of care
.2. the defendant breached the duty of care
.3. does the breach cause reasonable forseeable damadge

Question 2

Q

Duty of care

negligence - duty of care

Answer

A

according to the case robinson - you look at the situation and if there is a duty established (doctor-patient) in past cases which are similar you dont need to do duty of care
neighbour principle - anyone in your contemplation who might be directly affected by your actions
important case for duty of care
donoghue v stevenson - shows the neighbour principle
- drinks sealed ginger beer that was bought by friend who got from cafe who got from factory
had snail in it
who to sue

Question 3

Q

Caparo V Dickman

negligence - duty of care

Answer

A

three part test;
.1. was the damadge or harm forseeable
.2. is there a sufficently proxminate relationship between the calimant and the defendant
.3. is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty

Question 4

Q

.1. is the harm or damdage forseeable

negligence - duty of care

Answer

A

the harm to the victum must be reasonably forseeable
kent v griffiths - ashtma attack, ambulance wasnt there in time, liable, call centre promised
jolley v sutton london borough council - kids playing on rotton boat, boat landed on them, liable

Question 5

Q

.2. the claimant and defendant have a aproximate relationship

negligence - duty of care

Answer

A

bourhill v griffiths
preganat lady saw motor bike accident
lost her baby as so much shock
tried to sue parents but couldnt as motorcyclisst didnt owe a duty of care
hill v cheif constable of west yorkshire
serial killer been murdering people
police had enough infomation but was to late
next victums parents tried to sue police
relationship between police and victum were not proxitmate
mcloughlin v o’brien
claimants family in tragic lorry accident
c suffered shock after seeing family in court
sued successfully

Question 6

Q

.3 fair just and reasonable

negligence - duty of care

Answer

A

relucant to find that it is ‘fair just and reasonable’ to impose a duty on public officers
hill v chief constable of west yorkshire - if police always had a duty then they would start defensive policing
capital and counties v hampshire county council - fire broke out and fire brigade turned off the sprinklers so destoryed building,
duty held as turning off the sprinklers increased damadge

Question 7

Q

breach of duty

negligence - breach of duty

Answer

A

two part test
.1. objective standard of care
.2. the degree of risk

Question 8

Q

.1. the objective standard of care

negligence - break of duty - the objective standard of care

Answer

A

the standard of care is measured objectivly by the reasonable man test
created by the case blyth v birmingham waterworks
if a defendant falls below the standard of care , then there will be a breach of duty
there are characterics that the court can consider
experts
inexperienced people (learners)
children

Question 9

Q

experts

negligence - break of duty - the objective standard of care

Answer

A

where the defendant has some expertise
doctors
bolam v friern hospital managment
c was getting shock treatment for mental health , signed consent but has no info about broken bones
no breach
montgomery v lanarkshire health board
gave birth to a baby with cerebal palsy due to complications
doctor didnt say all the risks
doctor was liable

Question 10

Q

learners

negligence - break of duty - the objective standard of care

Answer

A

nettleship v weston
driving lesson
got in crash and hurt dirivng instructor
liable
learners are still held to the same standard as a reasonable man

Question 11

Q

children

negligence - break of duty - the objective standard of care

Answer

A

mchale v watson
threw a dart and it hit a girl in the eye
not liable
expect kids to be more reckless
mullin v richards
two girls player with plastic rulers
snapped and went in eye
not liable as only two teengae girls playing

Question 12

Q

degree of risk

negligence - break of duty - the degree of risk

Answer

A

court decides wether there has been a breach
there are risk factors that may be considered
.1. does the claimant have any special characteritics which should be taken into acount?
.2. what is the size of the risk?
.3. is it practicable to take precautions?
.4. is the risk forseeable
.5. is there a public benifit to the risk?

Question 13

Q

.1. does the claimant have any special characteristics

negligence - break of duty - the degree of risk

Answer

A

paris v stepney borough council
blind in one eye
worked where there was a risk to the eyes
not given protective goggles
liable
even tho the characteritics are special they should have taken precautions whne there is a known risk

Question 14

Q

.2. what is the size of the risk?

negligence - break of duty - the degree of risk

Answer

A

when the risk is small there is unlikly to be a duty of care
bolton v stone
got hit by a cricket ball walking past a cirkcet pitch
had a 17 foot fence protecting the road
only 6 balls had left the ground in 30 years
not liable as they have done everything they can
HOWEVER if there is a known risk and little precautions have been taken then more likly to be liable
haley v london electricity board
dug ground out to put wires in it
put signs but no barriers
blind claimant fell in the hole
liable

Question 15

Q

.3. is it practible to take precautions

negligence - break of duty - the degree of risk

Answer

A

court have to consider the balanceof risk involed against the cost and effort of taking precautions
latimer v AEC ltd
factory was flooded and floor was slippery
sawdust was put on floor
perosn slipped
not liable

Question 16

Q

.4. is the risk forseeable?

negligence - break of duty - the degree of risk

Answer

A

if the risk of harm is not known there is no breach
roe v minister of health
anaesthic was kept in glass tubes which were sterrilised
glass had unkown cracks
claimant got paralised
not liable

Question 17

Q

.5. is there public benefit to the risk?

negligence - break of duty - the degree of risk

Answer

A

if there is an emergency then greater risks can be taken and lower standard of care
emergency survices
watt v hertfordshire county council
claimant was firefighter
went to save lady under lorry
didnt have proper equipment and he got crushed
not liable - emergency
day v high performance sports
claimant was experienced climber and fell
wasnt rescued properly
not liable - acting in emergency

Question 18

Q

damage

negligence - damage

Answer

A

the loss suffered was caused by the breach of duty and that the damdge is remote
causation - the idea that the breach of duty factually and legally caused the damage
remotness of damage - the idea that the damadge has to be reasonably forseeable

Question 19

Q

causation

negligence - damage

Answer

A

.1. factual causation
use the but for test
barnett v chelsea and kengsington hospital
3 men went to hosptial after not feeling after drinking tea
doctor told go home
man died
not liable as to far gone
multiple causes - dont have to prove defendant breach was the main just that they contributed
.2. legal causation
de minimis
intervening act break the chain of causation
wether the injury was forseeable consequence of the orginal negligence or omision

Question 20

Q

remotness of damage

negligence - damage

Answer

A

must not be too remote
type of harm
egg shell skull rule

Question 21

Q

remotness of damage - not be too remote

negligence - damage

Answer

A

the damage can not be too remote from the d negligence
the injury or damage must be reasonable foreseeable
the wagon mound- important
oil spilt on water and set fire
not forseeable that it would catch light
crossly v rawlinson
lorry caught fire man went to help and fell
tried to see
not forseeable he would have fallen

Question 22

Q

remotness of damage - type of harm

negligence - damage

Answer

A

the damage must be of the same type/kind as the harm that could have been forseen
the case even if the precise way the harm actually happened wasnt necessarliy forseeable
hughes v lord advocate
man hole - kids played in it and fell and caught fire
liable - forseeable injury
bradford v robinson rentals
c was sent by employer to get a new van bc the old one didnt have heaters
got frostbite
liable - injuries were unusal but forseeable

Question 23

Q

remotness of damage - eggshell skull rule

negligence - damage

Answer

A

must take the victum as he finds them
smith v leech brain
man working in factory got burnt by molton iron
already had pre-cancerous condition
caused cancer
liable

Question 24

Q

defences to negligence

negligence defences

Answer

A

contributory negligence - part defence
consent - full defence

Question 25

Q

contributory negligence

negligence defences

Answer

A

where both defendant and claimant are to blame
can be reduced to the extent which the claimant contributed
decided by the judge
sayers v harlow urban district council - reduced 25% due to recklessness
jayes v imi ltd - reduced 100% as took guard off
o’connel v jackson - reduced 15% wasnt wearing a helmet
froom v butcher - reduced 20% as wasnt wearing a seatbelt

Question 26

Q

consent - volenti

negligence defences

Answer

A

no injury is done to somebody who consents to the risks
defendant has to show
.1. knowledge of the precise risk
,2, exercise of free choice by claimant
.3. a voluntary acceptance of the risk
THIS DEFENCE CAN NOT BE USED FOR ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS

Question 27

Q

,1, knowledge of the precise risk involved

negligence defences - consent

Answer

A

defendant must have full undertsnading of the nature of the actual risk
stermer v lawson
borrwed a motor bike and got injured
no defence - not been shown how to properly use

Question 28

Q

.2. exercise of free choice by claimant

negligence defences - consent

Answer

A

claimant has must voluntarily accept the risk and undertake it
smith v baker
injured on contruction site
knew risks but didnt consent to the lack of care
could make claim

Question 29

Q

.3. a voluntary acceptance of the risk

negligence defences - consent

Answer

A

where a person has a duty to act and is then injured because of the defendants negligence - NO DEFENCE
means the claimant had no choice but to act
haynes v harwood
police officer injured by holding horse which was tied properly
no defence - officer was working to protect not acting volentaryily
ogwo v taylor
fire fighter got injured putting a reckless fire out
no defence

Question 30

Q

strenghts of duty care

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

using the case robinson
provides clearer advide for claimants (similar cases) , more efficent
proximate test (c v d)
flexable with new situations (but unclear and undefined)
duty of care is important to establish posisble fault
fairness for defendant
making sure you are sueing the correct people

Question 31

Q

weakness of duty of care

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

the c v d test lacks clarity
makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients - extremly objective
judges deciding cases
“fair”,”just”,”reasonable”
judge decides that these words mean
“blanket immunity”
police force are imune from being sued
hill v west yourkshire police

Question 32

Q

reforms for duty of care

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

use dictionary
clear guidlines
be able to sue the police - change some rules

Question 33

Q

strenghts of breach

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

allows defedants characteristics to be taken into account
allows law to be applied fairly
vunreable claimants protected
nettleship v weston - unfair to be held to an expert
holds experts to a high standard
poeple have to stay ta a high standard
quality of provisions
however could put of surgeons doing big risky surgerys
forseeable risk + practical precautions
fairer for defendant
bolton v stone , small risk led to big outcome
expect less from children
however how do we decided the age - all mature differently

Question 34

Q

weaknesses of breach

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

standards are the same no matter the experience
nettleship v weston
junior doctors & experts
bolton v stone
claimant got no compensation as risk was small
all precautions taken
still injured
what is reasonable?
vauge, objective
judges decided and all different]
therefore not consitent

Question 35

Q

reforms for breach

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

change depending on what type of experience somebody has
easier to sue sports grounds
guidlines for medical experts

Question 36

Q

strength of caustation/remoteness

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

factual causation
fair
makes sure d is at fault
egg shell skull rule
justice for claimants whos not at fault
remotness
good for d
only liable for forseeable harm
reinforces motion of “mitigation of loss”

Question 37

Q

weakness of causation/remotness

evaluations of negligence

Answer

A

inconsistent
remotness is decided by judge - to much power
inconsistent application of causation
factual causation discrepancies about hospitals
barnett, chester v asfar
some hospitals liable and some not
problem when more than one defendant
claimant cant prove which one did it
remotness
unfair on claimant , limits liablity on d
issues with intervening act
steamship case
natural disaster but ship was already damadged
d only liable for first damadge - unfair for claimant

Question 38

Q

occupiers liability

occupiers liability - A01 for both

Answer

A

claimants injury or loss to property suffered while on the occupiers premises
occupiers liability act 1957 (lawful visitors)
occupiers liability act 1984 (tresspassers)
* first need to prove occipur and premises
loss for lawful - personal injury and property
loss for tresspasser - only personal injury

Question 39

Q

.1. occupier

occupiers liability - A01 for both

Answer

A

no statutory defintion
section1(2) states “someone in control of the premises”
the test is found in the case wheat v e lacon
doesnt have to be the owner or tennant , can be manager or emplyer
more than one person can be in control
defendant doesnt need proprietary interest
harris v birkenhead
council put up sign in house, abbanded
4 yr old gets injured, council in control
bailey v armes
the supermarket nor family were in control of the roof

Question 40

Q

.2. premises

occupiers liability - A01 for both

Answer

A

section 1(3)(a)
“any fixed or moveable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
london graving dock v horton - ship in a dry dock
hartwell v grayson - vehicles
haseldine v daw and son - lifts
wheeler v copas - ladders

Question 41

Q

lawful visitors

occupier liability for lawful visitors (1957)

Answer

A

invitees (any invited to enter)
licensees (permission to be there for a particular period)
contractual permission (person who has bought a ticket for an event)
statutory right (police)

Question 42

Q

owe a duty

occupier liability for lawful visitors (1957)

Answer

A

section 2(2) - have to keep a visitor reasonably safe not completly
laverton v kiapasha takeaway supreme
slip resistant floors , been cleaned
c slipped and hurt ankle - not liable , kept reasonably safe
the duty doesnt extend to liability for pure accidents
cole v davis-gilbert
injured from falling in a maypole hole
tried to sue royal legion
happened 2 yrs after removal
duty cant last that long and accident

Question 43

Q

duty for children

occupier liability for lawful visitors (1957)

Answer

A

additonal special duty - section2(3)
must be prepared for children to be less careful , must be reasonaly safe for a child of that age
children are attracted to allurments

Question 44

Q

duty for children cases

occupier liability for lawful visitors (1957)

Answer

A

may not pose a threat to an adult may be dangerous to a child - glasgow corporation v taylor
7yr old ate wild berries in park and died
council aware of fanger and didnt htink of children - liable
should guard against allurments - jolley v london borough of sutton
rotton boat
kids played on it and injured
council liable
parents- phiips v rochester corporation
5 and 7 yr playing on council land
fell down hole
council not liable - no parents

Question 45

Q

liability for tradesman

occupier liability for lawful visitors (1957)

Answer

A

owe a duty for a tradesman coming onto their premises
section2(3)(b) - if injured related to his traid then not liable
but should be told about special risks
roles v nathan
chimney sweeps died while working
not liable - know the risks of the job

Question 46

Q

liability for torts comminted by independant contractor (defence)

occupier liability for lawful visitors (1957)

Answer

A

if visitor is injured by a workmans negligent work
section2(4)
occupier must prove that
.1. must be reasonable for the occupier to give the work to the contractor (was specilst or complex work) - haseldine v daw and son
lift shaft fell
not liable as it was specialst work and should have been given to a specilst firm
.2. the contractor must be competent and insured - bottomly v todmorden cricket club
cricket club used stunt team for fireworks
went wrong and got injured
liable - didnt choose competant contractor
.3. occupier must check the work has been done propely (even if requires an expert) - woodward v mayor of hastings
need all of these

Question 47

Q

defences for lawful vistors

occupier liability for lawful visitors (1957)

Answer

A

contributory negligence
consent
warning notices - complete defence
must be effective enough
exclusion clauses

Question 48

Q

occupier liability for tresspassers

occupier liability for tresspassers (1984)

Answer

A

section 1(1)(a)
duty applies in respect of people other than lawful
the duty - section1(4) - to take such care as is reasobale in the cirsumstance to see that the tresspasser is not injured by reason of the danger
the greater the risk the more precautions

Question 49

Q

duty test

occupier liability for tresspassers (1984)

Answer

A

section 1(3)
* .1. he is aware of the danger or beleives it exists
* .2. to beleive that the other is in the vicinty of the danger or may come of the vicinity
* .3. offer the other some protection

Question 50

Q

adult tresspassers

occupier liability for tresspassers (1984)

Answer

A

not liable if tresspaper was injured by obvious danger - ratcliff v mcconnel
broke into swimming pool, dived in and no sign, dont need sign for obvious danger
the time of day/year is relevant - donoghue v folkstone properties
went to harbour and swam at midnight in december, slipped, no liable
occupier doesnt have to spend a lot of money to make the premises safe - tomlinson v congleton bc
resiviour, dont need to put fence up, sign was enough
occupier doesnt expect tresspassers - higgs v foster
expection pit for trucks, someone in there, no warning , not liable
wasnt aware of danger - rhind v astbury water park
didnt know submerged glass block was there , not liable

Question 51

Q

children tresspapers

occupier liability for tresspassers (1984)

Answer

A

same approach applies to child tresspapssers as adult
keown v conventury healthcentre nhs trust
children running up and down staircase
slipt on ice
not liable

Question 52

Q

defences for occupier liability for tresspassers (1984)

occupier liability for tresspassers (1984)

Answer

A

contributory negligence
consent (volenti)
warning signs

Question 53

Q

occupiers liablity evaulation

Answer

A

inconsitentcies between the damadge covered by 1957 and 1984
should tresspassers be abllowed to claim
obvious dangers

Question 54

Q

inconsitencies between the damadge covered by the 1957 and 1984 acts

occupiers liablity evaulation

Answer

A

.1. 1957 allows for personal injury and damadge but 1984 only personal injury - compensation is limited for tresspassers
.2. 1957 test is reasonable care to keep visitors reaosnably safe , 1984 is about being aware of the danger and people coming in
.3. 1984 test is inconsistent with usual objective tests - requires specifc knowledge

Question 55

Q

should tresspasers be able to claim?

occupiers liablity evaulation

Answer

A

judges reflect public opinoin by trying to not allow tresspapssers compensation
obvious dangers test to limit liability of occupiers
howver judges dont always represent the public
revill v newbery - 82 yr old was injured by a tresspasser and still have to pay compensation

Question 56

Q

obvious dangers

occupiers liablity evaulation

Answer

A

no duty owed to an occipuer if the injury is from an obvious danger
test is now in both
good thing
still inconsistent

Question 57

Q

reforms for occupiers liability

occupiers liablity evaulation

Answer

A

introduce no fault liability- go through insurance instead of courts
state run compensation scheme paid by taxes
change in approach of judges

Question 58

Q

private nuisance

Answer

A

“the unlawful interference with a persons use or enjoyment of their land coming from the unreasonable use of neigbours land”
claimant - anyone who has had the use or enjoyment of their land affected, have to have propiority interest
hunter v canary wharf - claim was about their view but they dont own the view
defendant - either caused or allowed or failed to deal with problem , dont need propiroty interest
sedleigh-dunfeild v o’callaghan - council came to fit pipe , monks knew it was broken didnt do anything, liable

Question 59

Q

direct inference

private nuisance

Answer

A

roots
sewage

Question 60

Q

indirect inference

private nuisance

Answer

A

noise
smell
fumes

Question 61

Q

factors affecting reasonableness of defendant

private nuisance

Answer

A

local area
time of day and duration
malicous defendant
sensitve claimant
social benefit

Question 62

Q

local area

private nuisance - factors affecting reasonableness

Answer

A

court will decide if its purely residentual, partly residentual or countryside
has the character changed over time
sturges v bridgeman
“what would be nuisance in belgrave square would not nessicarliy be so in bermonsdey”

Question 63

Q

time of day and duration

private nuisance - factors affecting reasonableness

Answer

A

to be actionable, the inference is likely to be continous and at unreasobale hours of the day or late at night
E.G consistant late night paties
crown river cruise ltd v kimbolton fireworks ltd
river barge was set alight by flamable debrie coming from firework display
not normally a nuisance but is in this case

Question 64

Q

malicious defendant

private nuisance - factors affecting reasonableness

Answer

A

delibratly harmful act will usally be inreasonable and private nuisance
christie v davey
c was music teachers and held music parties
d banging pots bc annoyed
deliriate malice behaviour

Answer 65

A

if it can be shown that the claimant is particulary sensitive then may not be private nusicance
robinson v kilbert
special paper ruined by other paper in basement
no nuisance - to senstive
network rail infrastructure v morris
new tracks were put next to a recording studio and messed up equipment
no nuisance

Answer 66

A

if it is proved that it is providing a benefit to the community, may be considered reasonable
miller v jackson
cricket balls always in garden
had high fence
social benifit - no nuisance

Answer 67

A

consent
prescription - if carried on for 20 years and no complaints sturges v bridgman - doctor rooms by factories , defence failed bc the 20yrs started when rooms were built
statutory authority and planning permisson - allen v gulf oil - did not have permission to have n oil refinary

Answer 68

A

injunctions
damages
abatement

Answer 69

A

strict liability tort - no requirment to show fault
claimant - has to have an interest in the land affected
defendant - must have some control over the land
rylands v fletcher
build resivour on land - didnt cover mines properly in neighbours land

Answer 70

A

.1. bringing onto the land
.2. the thing is likly to do mischeif if it escapes
.3. non - natural use of the land
.4. escapes and causes forseeable harm

Answer 71

A

the defendant must bring something onto the land that is not naturally present
not weeds - giles v walker
not rainwater - ellison v minister of defence

Answer 72

A

test of forseeability
if escapes must be forseeable
for example
gas and electricity - transco v stockport
poisonous fumes
tree branches
chair-o-plane - hale v jenning bros - liable
fire - lms v styrene packaging - liable
but - stannard - flamable tires - not liable

Answer 73

A

non-natural refers to some unusal use of land
examples of natural uses that would not lead to liability
fire in a grate
defective electic wiring
domestic water supply - rickards v lothing
benefit of the community - british celanese v ah hunt ltd
stored strips of metal foil for electrics , blew away
benefit neigbourhood

Answer 74

A

claimant needs propiroty interest in the land
read v lyons - just employees and claiming for personal injury
must be forseeable
cambridge water co - although lots of floods, it was not reasonable to make them move , too much money

Answer 75

A

consent
contributory negligence
act of starnger - perry v kendricks transport - petrol tank, one unscrewed, another threw cigarrete
act of god
statutory authority

Answer 76

A

comes from the test barclays bank
two part test
.1. was the person alleged to have commited the tort an employee (relationship)
.2. did the employee commit the alleged tort closely connected his employment (connection)

Answer 77

A

if there is a clear employment relationship, we have 3 traditonal tests
control test
intergtaion or organisation test
economic reality test

Answer 78

A

comes from the case short v henderson - “master & servant”
how much autonomy over own work does tortfeaser have?
if there is more control they are more likly an employee
mersey docks & harbour board v coggins and griffths
crane driver hired out , paying wages and sent with the equipment
hawley v luminar leisure
bouncer supplied by another company assualted a a customer
club was liable

Answer 79

A

how intergrated/important is the tortfeaser to the company?
test comes from
stevenson, jordan + harrison v mcdonald and evans
if they are only an accesary to the company they wont be an employer
cox v minister or justice
prisoner working in kitchen
dropped rice on someones foot
prison has lots of control and cant run without him
employer

Answer 80

A

are they paying taxes, NI, payslip, pensions, tools and equpiment
employmentready mixed contre v minister
.1. employee agrees to provide work in exchange for a wage
.2. the employee accpets that the work will be subject to the employer
.3. everything in the contract is consistent

Answer 81

A

.1. d likly to have means of compensation
.2. tort was commited as a result of activity on behalf of the d
.3. the tortfeasers activity is likly to be part of the d business activity
.4. the d has created the risk of the tort being commited by the torfeaser by employing them
.5. d maintains a dgree of control over tortfeaser
catholic child welfare society v various claimants
teachers sexually assulated kids at school
connected to employment - liable
mahamud v morrison supermarket
employee assaulted customer at petrol station - employers liable
barclays bank v various claimants
doctors assulated employees while carrying our medical exmainations for barclays
bank not liable

Answer 82

A

barclays bank v various claimants
doctor had;
other jobs
insurance
lots of autonomy

Answer 83

A

acting against orders
acting outside employment
commiting a criminal act
negligent act
acting on a frolic of their own

Answer 84

A

is doing his job but acting against orders the employer is still liable
if deloberatly acting in a prohinted way then employer not liable
rose v plenty
instructed not to use children in factories
did and got injured
employer liable as not prohibted just instructed
twine v bear express
c husband died due to negligence work who was prohibited not to give lifts
employer not liable as prohinted not to

Answer 85

A

doing something outside of their employment the employer is not liable
beard v london general omnibus
bus driver drove bus without authority
employer not liable as acting outside of employment

Answer 86

A

if there is a close connection between crime and employment then employer liable
lister v helsey hall
sexually assaulted children at a special school
close connection - employer liable
n v chief constable of merseyside police
sexual assult carried out by police officer
employer not liable - only enabled him to gain trust
mohamud v morrison
employee assulated customer
close connection
employer liable

Answer 87

A

if the employee does a job badly then employer still liable
century insurance v nothen ireland road transport board
petrol tank driver
threw cigarrete on the ground
employer liable

Answer 88

A

causes damge to another while doing something outside their work, will not be liable
hilton v thomas burton ltd
took unathorised break and drive to cafe and had accident
employer not liable as not acting in course of their employment
smith v stages
employee driving home from work but payed for that journey
employer liable

Answer 89

A

morrison v various
publised data that he stole whenhe worked at morrisons
had been fired
morrions was not liable - was to delibratly harm morrison

Answer 90

A

confusing and ever changing employee test
inconsitency of decisions in cases about employees undertaking dangerous or prohibited activities
problems with replacing the employee test with a single test
VL justified because employers should be more responsible and can pay more easily
unfair burden on employers

Answer 91

A

rules can be complictaed
if the torfeaser is on loan/subcontracted
are doing something not directly part of employment
REFORM
have a single test
fairer and employer would be in no dount for whom they are responsible for

Answer 92

A

restrictive to the diverse nature of employment contrcators
could just use sub-contrcated workers to avoid responsibility for dangerous practice - unfair
one size doesnt fit all - mersey docks v coggins

Answer 93

A

rose v plenty , twine v beans express
both employees were told not to do things but only employer in rose was liable
hilton acting on a frolic m so uncsuccseful clam, whereas similar facts in smith v stages but emplyer liable

Answer 94

A

unrealistic to expect an employer to have control over all possible and unpredictable actions of their employees
less fair when tort is commited outside workplace/homeworking employer has less control
contradicts fault based principle of liability

Answer 95

A

employer is at a better place to compensate because they will have insurance
possibility of claims can encourage the employer to take higher standards of care and not turn a blind eye
REFORM
take an active role in monitoring employees activites
employer should be responsible as they are in control, responsible for training and have power to fire anyone not doing their jobs properly

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Tort Law - Paper 2 Section B Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM