Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Law Y2 > Tort S1 > Flashcards

Tort S1 Flashcards

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

WVH Rogers(ed), Winfieldand Jolowicz on Tort

A

negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant’

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

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL)

A

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour

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

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728

A

The Anns test

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

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)

A

Three stage test

  • existing Duties
  • forseeability
  • Fair just and reasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Woodland v SwimmingTeachers Association

A

a duty of care exists between school and child

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

Pippin v Sheppard (1822) 147 ER 512 (Ct of Ex.)

A

A duty of care exists between doctor and patient

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

Dulieu vWhite & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 (KB)

A

A duty of care exists between road users

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

Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57 (HL)

A

A duty of care exists between employer and employee

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

Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 (HL)

A

A duty of care exists between lawyer and client

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

Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 (HL)

A

Foreseeability

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

Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398 (HL)

A

Proximity

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

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] 1 AC 874 (HL)

A

Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

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

Blyth v BirminghamWaterworks

A

“…the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

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

Hall v Brooklands Auto- Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205 (CA), 224 (Greer LJ)

A

the man on the Clapham Omnibus

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

Nettleship vWeston [1971] 2 QB 691 (CA)

A

The “reasonable man” is an objective standard

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

Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295

A

A child is held to the standard objectively expected of a child of that age

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

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1WLR 582 (QB)

A

A defendant is held to the standard of the ordinary skilled man professing to exercise the relevant skill

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

Wilsher v Essex AHA [1987] QB 730 (CA)

A

Junior doctor = the reasonably competent doctor

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

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232 (HL)

A

The professional practice adopted must be “reasonable” and “logical”

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

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11

A

A doctor has a duty to warn patients of any risk where a reasonable person would attach significance to that risk

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

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 (HL)

A

The more likely the harm the more the reasonable man would have done to prevent it

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

Roe v Ministry of Health [1954] 2 QB 66 (CA)

A

The defendant’s conduct will be assessed at the time of the breach and NOT with hindsight

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

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 (HL)

A

The more serious the injury, the more the “reasonable man” would have done to prevent it

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

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

[1954] 1WLR 835 (CA)

A

The greater the “social value” of the activity, the lower the courts’ safety expectations

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

s.1 Compensation Act 2006

A

(a) prevent desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or
(b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity.’

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

Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co

[1865] All ER Rep 248

A

The circumstances of the case can sometimes be evidence of carelessness - “res ipsa loquitur”

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

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 (QBD)

A

Classic example of and authority for the “but for” test in tort law

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

Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority

[1988] 1 AC 1074 (HL)

A

Where there are multiple potential causes D may escape liability (non-cumulative condition)

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

Bonnington Castings Ltd vWardlaw [1956] 2WLR 707 (HL)

A

Exception: Material contribution to harm (Cumulative conditions)

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

McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL)

A

exception: Material increase in risk (Non-cumulative conditions)

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

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22

A

Exception: Unjust results: mesothelioma

An non-cumulative condition

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

Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20

A

Proportionate damages introduced for non- cumulative conditions involving multiple Ds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Chester v Asfar [2005] UKHL 41

A

Exception: Unjust results: a failure to inform

34
Q

Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328 (HL)

A

Exception: Indeterminate causes

35
Q

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority

[1998] AC 232 (HL)

A

Exception: Uncertain actions

36
Q

Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd [1982] AC 794 (HL)

A

A subsequent naturally occurring event will end the earlier tortious liability

37
Q

Murrell v Healy [2001] EWCA Civ 486

A

A subsequent negligent event will usually result in divided tortious liability

38
Q

OverseasTankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (TheWagon Mound) No 1 [1961]AC 388 (PC)

A

Remoteness test = was the kind of damage reasonably foreseeable at the point of breach?

39
Q

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co

[1964] 1 QB 518 (CA)

A

What counts is whether the kind of damage was foreseeable, rather than the extent

40
Q

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837

A

What counts is whether the kind of damage was foreseeable, rather than the extent

41
Q

Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405

A

A defendant is liable for the full extent of harm caused, even if more than might be expected due to weakness or frailty (“egg shell skull” rule)

42
Q

Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64

A

The “egg shell skull” rule also applies to economic harms

43
Q

Rouse v Squires [1973] 1 QB 889

A

a subsequent negligent act may not be enough break the chain of causation

44
Q

Knightly v Johns [1982] 1WLR 349

A

a subsequent negligent act may break the chain of causation

45
Q

s.1 Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978

A

Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person liable in respect of any damage suffered by another person may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly with him or otherwise).

46
Q

example of a “contribution”

A

Wright v Lodge [1993] 4 All ER 299 (CA)

47
Q

McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 (HL)

A

a claimant’s negligence may break the chain of causation (but mere unreasonable conduct is not enough

48
Q

Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [1990] 2 QB 283 (CA)

A

a claimant does not break the chain of causation by committing suicide in custody

49
Q

Gray vThamesTrains [2009] UKHL 33

A

The claimant’s later criminal act will break the chain of causation

50
Q

Smith v Charles Baker & Sons

[1891] AC 325 (HL), 360 (Lord Herschell)

A

‘…one who had invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers it, complain of it as a wrong.’

51
Q

White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651 (CA)

A

consent to an exclusion of liability will negative duty (where valid under UCTA77)

52
Q

Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509

A

Knowledge of risk alone is insufficient - there must be consent to the risk

53
Q

Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6 (CA)

A

Knowledge of risk alone is insufficient - there must be consent to the risk

54
Q

Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 (CA)

A

A sports player may consent to the risk of injury, but such consent does not extend to serious foul play

55
Q

Gray v Thames Trains [2009] UKHL 33

A

key example of and authority for the illegality defence

56
Q

Vellino v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1249

A

another example of the illegality defence in action

57
Q

Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47

A

Illegality will not bar the claim when it merely provides the context

58
Q

Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42

A

the courts adopt a flexible, balancing approach to the defence of illegality

59
Q

s.1(1) and s. 4 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

A

Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault…the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks it is just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.’

60
Q

Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 QB 608 (CA)

A

the courts adopt an objective standard when judging C’s conduct

61
Q

Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286 (CA)

A

contributory negligence will reduce damages by an amount that reflects C’s comparative blameworthiness

62
Q

Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5

A

the allocation of liability is subjective and judgments of lower courts should be respected where they are reasonable

63
Q

Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66

A

a school owes its pupils a “non-delegable” duty of care

64
Q

Stephenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v McDonall & Evans [1952] 1TLR 101 (CA)

A

The courts have traditionally used “control” as the test for employment-like relationships

65
Q

Various Claimants v Catholic ChildWelfare Society and Others [2012] UKSC 56

A

The modern test: is the relationship “akin to employment”

66
Q

Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10

A

a prisoner completing paid work in a prison is in a relationship “akin to employment”

67
Q

Majrowski v Guy’s and StThomas’ NHSTrust [2006] UKHL 34

A

an “employer” may be equally liable for intentional torts

68
Q

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] UKHL 22

A

The modern test = the “close connection” test

69
Q

Mohamud v W M Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11

A

The court interprets “close connection” loosely…

70
Q

Livingstone v Raywards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cas 25, 39 (Lord Blackburn)

A

compensatory damages

the sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong

71
Q

Wells vWells [1999] 1AC 345 (HL)

A

court sure the ogden tables to calculate damages for the claimants lifetime

72
Q

s.1 Fatal Accidents Act 1976

A

The relatives of a deceased may bring a claimant for their losses, including bereavement

73
Q

ss. 2, 11 and 33 Limitation Act 1980

A

limitation periods for tortious claims

s. 2 tort six years from the tort
s. 11 PI - three years from the tort or knowledge
s. 33 court discretion to extend

74
Q

CPR 1.1

A

the overriding objective

enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.

75
Q

CPR 12

A

Default Judgment

76
Q

CPR 3.4

A

Strike out

77
Q

CPR 3.1(3)

A

Unless orders

78
Q

CPR 24

A

Summary judgement

79
Q

CPR 25.12

A

security for costs

80
Q

what is a document?

A

CPR 31.4

‘document’ means anything in which information of any description is recorded

Law Y2 (5 decks)

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