Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Tort Law 1 > Tort of Negligence: Liability for Physical Injury and Damage to Property > Flashcards

Tort of Negligence: Liability for Physical Injury and Damage to Property Flashcards

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

What is negligence?

A

The defendant failing to do something which the reasonable person would do or doing something which the reasonable person would not do

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

What case defines negligence?

A

BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS

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

What needs to be proved for D to be liable in negligence?

A

Duty of care, breach of duty of care and damage caused

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

What is the definition of a duty of care?

A

A duty of care is owed to persons who are so closely and directly affected by D’s act that he ought reasonably to have them in contemplation

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

In which case was the neighbour principle established?

A

DONOGHUE V STEVENSON

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

What happened in DONOGHUE V STEVENSON?

A

A decomposing snail was found in a bottle of ginger beer after drinking it which caused personal injury

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

What has replaced the neighbour principle?

A

The CAPARO test

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

What is the CAPARO test used for?

A

To establish a duty of care

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

What is the first part of the CAPARO test?

A

There will be a duty of care if it was reasonably foreseeable that there was a risk that C and/or their property would be affected

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

What is the second part of the CAPARO test?

A

There will be a duty of care if the relationship between C and D was sufficiently proximate in time and space

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

What is the third part of the CAPARO test?

A

There will be a duty of care if it was fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances for a duty of care to be imposed on D

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

What case corresponds with the first part of the CAPARO test for physical injury?

A

HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD

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

What does the case HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD say?

A

A reasonable person must foresee the possibility that, if care is not taken by D, physical injury might be caused

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

What happened in HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD?

A

A trench was dug and left unattended with just a shovel as a warning to pedestrians. C was blind so didn’t see the warning and fell, the court held that this was reasonably foreseeable

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

What case corresponds with the first part of the CAPARO test for damage to property?

A

HUNTER V CANARY WHARF

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

What does the case HUNTER V CANARY WHARF say?

A

It must be that a reasonable person would foresee the possibility that, if care is not taken by D, damage to property might be caused. The damage to property must be more than merely trivial

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

What case corresponds with the second part of the CAPAPO test?

A

BOURHILL V YOUNG

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

What does the case BOURHILL V YOUNG say?

A

It must be reasonably foreseeable that D’s conduct might cause harm to C due to the closeness and directness of the relationship between them

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

What happened in BOURHILL V YOUNG?

A

C got off a tram when a motorcyclist collided with a car 50 feet away and died. C heard the crash but didn’t see it then walked past where the incident occurred and saw the blood. C went into shock and her baby was born stillborn so she brought a negligence case against D’s estate but it failed as there wasn’t sufficient proximity when the incident occurred

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

What does the case BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS say about the breach of duty of care?

A

D will have breached his duty of care if he failed to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the same circumstances

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

What does the case NETTLESHIP V WESTON say about the breach of duty of care?

A

Where a person holds himself out to the public as possessing a special skill, he is required to reach the standard normally expected of persons doing that activity

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

What happened in NETTLESHIP V WESTON?

A

A learner driver was expected to reach the standard of a qualified driver

23
Q

What does the case BOLAM V FRIERN say about the breach of duty of care?

A

D will not be liable if some responsible member of the same trade or profession would agree with D’s course of action

24
Q

What does the case CALDWELL V MAGUIRE say about the breach of duty of care?

A

Where D is playing a sport with C, D will fail to reach the standard of care of a reasonable person playing that sport at D’s level if D’s disregard for C’s safety is deliberate or reckless

25
Q

What does the case MULLIN V RICHARDS say about the breach of duty of care?

A

If D is a child, D must reach the standard of care expected of a reasonable child of D’s age

26
Q

What happened in MULLIN V RICHARDS?

A

15 year old girls were fencing with plastic rulers and one shattered and blinded one of the girls

27
Q

What can risk factors do to the standard of care that D is required to reach?

A

Raise it or lower it

28
Q

What does the case BOLTON V STONE say about risk factors?

A

The more likely that a risk of harm will occur, the higher the standard of care expected and the more precautions that D needs to take

29
Q

What happened in BOLTON V STONE?

A

C was hit by a cricket ball from a ground with a high fence. The batsman was 80 yards away and the ball was the sixth in 30 years to be hit out of the ground so enough precautions had been taken given the small risk

30
Q

What does the case PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL say about risk factors?

A

The seriousness of the potential risk factor will also affect the standard of care that D is expected to reach. Where there is a risk of serious harm, the more precautions D needs to take

31
Q

What happened In PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH COUNCIL?

A

D only had sight in one eye, and when working a splinter of metal went into his eye leaving him completely blind but D should have been provided safety goggles

32
Q

What does the case DABORN V BATH TRAMWAYS say about the standard of care?

A

In setting the standard of care, the court will take into account any relevant social utility of D’s act. It may be that a desirable community activity justifies D taking a particular risk

33
Q

What happened in DABORN V TRAMWAYS?

A

It was said that if all trains were restricted to 5mph there would be fewer accidents but national life would be slowed down

34
Q

What does the case WATT V HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL say about risk factors?

A

If there is an emergency, with little time to make decisions, greater risks can be taken by D and a lower standard of care is required

35
Q

What does the case LATIMER V AEC say about precautions?

A

The courts will balance the risk of harm involved against the cost and effort of taking adequate precautions to prevent the risk

36
Q

What happened in LATIMER V AEC?

A

D’s factory became flooded and he took measures to create safety but someone still slipped

37
Q

What does the case BARNETT V CHELSEA AND KENSINGTON HOSPITAL say about the cause of the damage?

A

D’s breach of duty must be the factual cause of the damage. If the harm would have happened anyway then D will not be liable

38
Q

What happened in BARNETT V CHELSEA AND KENSINGTON HOSPITAL?

A

V was sent home from the hospital to be examined by his own doctor but he died a few hours later but the court held that he would’ve died anyway

39
Q

What are the three types of intervening acts which will prevent D from being the legal cause of the damage?

A

An act of God/nature, C’s own conduct and an act of a third party

40
Q

What must an act of nature be to break the chain of causation?

A

Overwhelming or unpredictable

41
Q

What case corresponds with C’s own conduct as an intervening act?

A

MCKEW V HOLLAND LTD

42
Q

What does MCKEW V HOLLAND LTD say about C’s own conduct as an intervening act?

A

C’s own conduct will break the chain of causation where C’s conduct is unreasonable where C has made a voluntary and informed decision to act and it was not reasonably foreseeable that C would act in this way

43
Q

What happened in MCKEW V HOLLAND LTD?

A

C strained his back and hips and his legs were prone to giving way. He went down a staircase with no handrail unaided and decided to jump the last 10 steps

44
Q

What case corresponds with an act of a third part as an intervening act?

A

KNIGHTLY V JOHNS

45
Q

What does the case KNIGHTLY V JOHNS say?

A

An act of a third party will break the chain of causation if the act is not reasonably foreseeable

46
Q

What does THE WAGON MOUND CASE say?

A

It is considered to be unjust to make D liable for events too far removed from his original breach of duty. D will be able to avoid liability for damage that is too remote from his wrongdoing if he can prove that the harm was not reasonably foreseeable

47
Q

What happened in THE WAGON MOUND?

A

A ship leaked oil into a harbour. The oil drifted to below C’s wharf where welding was going on. A fire was caused due to the oil and significant damage was caused. The court held that the damage was too remote from D’s negligent act of spilling the oil

48
Q

What does the case BRADFORD V ROBINSON RENTALS say?

A

The harm suffered must be of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable as a result of D’s negligence

49
Q

What does the case HUGHES V LORD ADVOCATE say?

A

If harm of a reasonably foreseeable kind occurs, normally D will still be liable even though the precise manner in which the negligent act causes the harm could not be foreseen

50
Q

What happened in HUGHES V LORD ADVOCATE?

A

Two boys explored an unattended manhole which was surrounded by a tent and paraffin lamps to warn of the danger. A lamp was knocked into the hole and exploded causing extensive burns.

51
Q

What case explains the egg shell skull rule?

A

SMITH V LEECH BRAIN

52
Q

What is the egg shell skull rule?

A

D must takes C as he finds them

53
Q

What happened in SMITH V LEECH BRAIN?

A

V was burned by zinc on his lip. His lip contained pre-cancerous cells which were triggered by the burn

Tort Law 1 (16 decks)

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