unit 1

Question 1

compensation (w)

Answer 1

odszkodowania

Question 2

deterrence (w)

Answer 2

odstraszania

Question 3

vindication (w)

Answer 3

Protecting from happening in the future.
Sue only to make a point.
Client want investigation.

Question 4

Corrective justice def

Answer 4

Corrective justice rests on a notion of individual responsibility:
if I am responsible for harming you, then justice requires me to put things right.

Sprawiedliwość naprawcza opiera się na pojęciu odpowiedzialności indywidualnej:

Question 5

a formidable riposte (w)

Answer 5

groźna riposta

Question 6

The Master of the Rolls

Answer 6

Head of Civil Justice

Question 7

Magna Carte

Answer 7

the due process of law
It required punishment to fit the crime

Question 8

neighbour principle (def)

Answer 8

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

Musisz zachować należytą ostrożność, aby uniknąć działań lub zaniechań, co do których możesz rozsądnie przewidzieć, że mogą spowodować krzywdę u twojego sąsiada.

Question 9

What are two legislation tried to reduce compensation

Answer 9

The compensation Act 2006
The social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act

Question 10

What do I find in The Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases

Answer 10

contains a distillation of the awards of damages that have been and are being awarded by courts throughout the UK in personal injury cases.

zawiera zestawienie odszkodowań, które zostały i są przyznawane przez sądy w Wielkiej Brytanii w sprawach dotyczących obrażeń ciała.

Question 11

Cases

Answer 11

Splited coffe
Splitted custard and burn
Mcdonald coffe
jump in the lake
Water fountain
Game with thrones

Question 12

Law of the land

Question 13

the human rights
set down in the Convention. These rights include:

Answer 13

the right to life (Art 2),
the right to respect for private and family life (Art 8)
the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment (Art 3),
the right to a fair trial (Art 6),
and the right to freedom of expression (Art 10).
the right to liberty and security (Art 5),

Question 14

‘claimant’ ‘plaintiff (w)

Answer 14

victim

Question 15

the defendant

Answer 15

pozwany

Question 16

tort law (def)

Answer 16

**Tort law is the name given to a diverse collection of legal wrongs for which the law provides a remedy. These wrongs—or torts—protect an individual’s interest in, among other things, their personal integrity, their property, their use and enjoyment of their land or their reputation. **

Prawo deliktowe to nazwa nadana różnorodnemu zbiorowi niedozwolonych praw, na które prawo zapewnia środek zaradczy. Niedozwolony czyn chroni interes jednostki, między innymi, jej integralność osobistą, własność, użytkowanie i korzystanie z ziemi lub reputację.

Question 17

“actionable per se”

Answer 17

Actionable without proof of damage.

Możliwość podjęcia działań bez konieczności udowodnienia szkody.

Question 18

Donoghue v Stevenson

Question 19

What is tort law and how does it differ from contract or criminal law?

Answer 19

A tort is a civil wrong. Whereas contract law is about voluntary obligations (that is obligations you have freely chosen to enter into), tort law involves breaches of imposed obligations.
One way in which tort law differs from criminal law is that actions in criminal law are brought by the state to punish the defendant, whereas in tort law actions are brought by an individual and provide a remedy for the loss or harm (see further section 1.2). Another difference relates to the remedy or consequence of the court’s decision.

Delikt jest czynem niedozwolonym. Podczas gdy prawo umów dotyczy dobrowolnych zobowiązań (czyli zobowiązań, które dobrowolnie wybrałeś, aby je zawrzeć), prawo deliktowe obejmuje naruszenia narzuconych zobowiązań.
Jednym ze sposobów, w jaki prawo deliktowe różni się od prawa karnego, jest to, że w prawie karnym działania są podejmowane przez państwo w celu ukarania pozwanego, podczas gdy w prawie deliktowym działania są podejmowane przez jednostkę i stanowią środek zaradczy za stratę lub szkodę (patrz dalsza sekcja 1.2). Inna różnica dotyczy środka zaradczego lub konsekwencji decyzji sądu.

Question 20

What is the purpose of compensating for injury?

Answer 20

It is often said that the purpose of compensation in tort law is to put the claimant ‘back into the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred’. However, this simply prompts a further question as to why tort law requires this. This question goes to the heart of the theoretical basis of tort law. Some people say that this is required as a principle of (corrective) justice, or to vindicate the claimant’s rights. Others point to the role of deterrence or the importance of spreading the loss (e.g. through the use of insurance).

Często mówi się, że celem odszkodowania w prawie deliktowym jest przywrócenie powoda „do sytuacji, w której byłby, gdyby nie doszło do czynu niedozwolonego”. Jednak to po prostu nasuwa kolejne pytanie, dlaczego prawo deliktowe tego wymaga. Pytanie to trafia w sedno teoretycznej podstawy prawa deliktowego. Niektórzy twierdzą, że jest to wymagane jako zasada sprawiedliwości (naprawczej) lub w celu obrony praw powoda. Inni wskazują na rolę odstraszania lub znaczenie rozłożenia straty (np. poprzez wykorzystanie ubezpieczenia).

Question 21

What is meant by the term ‘compensation culture’ and what does the use of the term imply?

Answer 21

The existence of a ‘compensation culture’, that is a culture which encourages us to blame others (rather than ourselves) for our misfortune and to seek to claim significant awards of damages, has been subject to much debate. Though the word ‘culture’ suggests that the ‘default’ position is to ensure that injured parties are compensated, this is not the case. Whether or not there is in fact, a culture of compensation, perhaps what is more dangerous—and certainly far more real—is the perception of such a state of affairs. Successive governments have tried to address this—see, for example, the introduction of the Compensation Act 2006, the Social Action, Heroism and Responsibility Act 2015 and Lord Young’s Common Sense, Common Safety report.

Istnienie „kultury odszkodowań”, czyli kultury, która zachęca nas do obwiniania innych (zamiast siebie) za nasze nieszczęście i do ubiegania się o znaczne odszkodowania, było przedmiotem wielu debat. Chociaż słowo „kultura” sugeruje, że „domyślnym” stanowiskiem jest zapewnienie, że poszkodowani otrzymają odszkodowanie, nie jest to prawdą. Niezależnie od tego, czy w rzeczywistości istnieje kultura odszkodowań, być może bardziej niebezpieczne — a z pewnością o wiele bardziej realne — jest postrzeganie takiego stanu rzeczy. Kolejne rządy próbowały zająć się tym — patrz na przykład wprowadzenie ustawy o odszkodowaniach z 2006 r., ustawy o działaniach społecznych, bohaterstwie i odpowiedzialności z 2015 r. oraz raport Lorda Younga „Common Sense, Common Safety” (omówiony również w rozdziałach 8 i 21).

Question 22

Are the disparate aims of tort law conflicting or complementary? Give reasons for your answer.

Czy różne cele prawa deliktowego są sprzeczne czy się uzupełniają? Podaj powody swojej odpowiedzi.

Question 23

Assault (def)

Answer 23

Is an intentional act by defendant that causes the claimant to reasonably apprehend the immediate of battery. Thomas and Others v National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales Area) and Others
„czynność powodująca, że ​​inna osoba
przeczuwa, że ​​zostanie na niej zastosowana natychmiastowa, bezprawna siła”

Question 24

Battery (def)

Answer 24

‘the actual infliction
of unlawful force on another
person’

the example of common sens about decision which you create towards crowd.

the person who throws a stone in a crowded area not intending (i.e. setting out) to hit
anyone but knowing it is likely that someone may be hit will be liable in the tort of battery.
Key cases: cf Collins v Wilcock [1984] and Wilson v Pringle [1987]

rzeczywiste zastosowanie bezprawnej siły wobec innej osoby osoba, która rzuca kamieniem w zatłoczonym miejscu nie mając zamiaru (tj. nie zamierzając) uderzyć ktokolwiek, ale wiedząc, że istnieje prawdopodobieństwo, że ktoś zostanie uderzony, będzie ponosić odpowiedzialność za delikt pobicia

Question 25

False imprisonment
‘

Answer 25

the unlawful imposition of constraint on
another’s freedom of movement from a
particular place’

s freedom of movement from a particular
place’ (at 1177). As such, ‘imprisonment’ extends to any action that deprives the claimant of their freedom
of movement—so long as there is a complete restriction of this freedom and the defendant has no lawful
justification or excuse the claimant will have been falsely imprisoned. Like the other trespass torts it is
actionable per se. There is no need to show force, though a claimant must not be taken to be consenting to
the imprisonment simply because they do not resist.

In order for there to be an actionable claim for false imprisonment:
the defendant must intend to completely restrict the claimant’s freedom of movement;
without lawful justification or excuse.

Question 26

the trespass to the person torts are described as having the same characteristics:

Answer 26

they must be committed intentionally;
they must cause direct and immediate ‘harm’;4
and
they are actionable per se, that is, without proof of loss.

These characteristics distinguish the trespass to the person torts from the tort of negligence. Put simply,
trespass compensates the claimant in relation to direct and intentional harm (e.g. being deliberately hit),
while negligence compensates the claimant for unintentional or indirect harm (i.e. accidental injury).

Question 27

. An actionable assault requires that:

Answer 27

the defendant intends that the claimant apprehends the immediate and direct application of
unlawful force;
the claimant reasonably apprehends the immediate and direct application of unlawful force;
for which the defendant has no lawful justification or excuse.

Question 28

When assalut when battery?
Stephens v Myers (1830) 4 C&P 350 Assizes

Answer 28

For there to be an assault the claimant must reasonably anticipate or expect the application of unlawful
force—that is, the infliction of a battery. Thus, if Rafe creeps up behind Henry and strikes him, Rafe has
committed a battery, but not an assault. It would only be an assault if Henry knew Rafe was about to hit
him. Conversely, if Henry sees Rafe coming and moves so that he successfully avoids Rafe’s blow, Rafe will
have committed an assault but no battery. The test of reasonable apprehension is an objective one. It does
not matter whether the particular claimant was overly timid or if they could have defended themselves
successfully

Question 29

omission (w)

Answer 29

pominiecie

Question 30

trespass (w)

Answer 30

wtargniécie,

Question 31

The Mental Capacity Act 2005, s 1

Answer 31

A person must be assumed to have capacity unless it is established that he lacks
capacity.
A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision unless all practicable
steps to help him to do so have been taken without success.
A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes
an unwise decision.
An act done, or decision made, under this Act for or on behalf of a person who lacks
capacity must be done, or made, in his best interests.
Before the act is done, or the decision is made, regard must be had to whether the
purpose for which it is needed can be as effectively achieved in a way that is less
restrictive of the person’s rights and freedom of action.

A medical
professional will not incur liability for treating a patient who is temporarily or permanently incapacitated,
so long as before doing so they take reasonable steps to establish, and reasonably believe, that the patient
lacks capacity and the treatment or procedure is in the patient’s ‘best interests’ (s 5). Where the patient’s
lack of capacity is only temporary—due to shock or anger or as a result of an accident—the medical
professional may treat the patient in accordance with their best interests, though they should also take
into account when the person is likely to regain capacity in relation to the matter in question and, if
possible, wait until the patient has regained capacity before continuing with further treatment

Question 32

What rule is generated under the Wilkinson v Downton tort:

Answer 32

Not all intentionally caused distress should give rise to liability under the Wilkinson v Downton tort.

Question 33

Rhodes v OPO The case involved the publication of a memoir by James Rhodes, a well-known performing artist, in
which he detailed the sexual abuse he suffered while at school and his subsequent mental health
issues.

Answer 33

that the defendant must
have intended to cause physical harm or severe mental or emotional distress. Recklessness is not sufficient.
Nor can intention be imputed as a matter of law, though it may be inferred as a matter of fact

Question 34

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Answer 34

(Mitton v Benefield [2011] at [10]). The behaviour must be of a level that is ‘oppressive and unacceptable’: Courts are well able to recognise the boundary between conduct
which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the
boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which
would sustain criminal liability under section 2 (Lord Nicholls, Majrowski [2007] at [30]).