WEEK 9 Flashcards
What is Tort Law?
Criminal Law – punishing people who have committed wrongs in the eye of the state
Tort Law – a civil wrong where an innocent party suffers loss or harm
Some actions can concern both criminal and tort law e.g. a drunk driver injuring a pedestrian
The Law of Torts
duties owed to persons in various circumstances
E.g. by law, all UK drivers owe a duty of care to all other road users
The Tort of Negligence
This covers a wide range of situations where persons cause harm to other due to negligence. In order to succeed in a legal action, the claimant has to prove 3 things:
I - The defendant owed the claimant a duty of care
II - The defendant breached that duty of care
III - Reasonably foreseeable damage was caused by the breach
I - A duty of care
The ‘neighbour principle’ determines whether a duty of care was owed for a loss caused by negligence
Established in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
Every person owes a duty of care to their neighbour - this is somebody that a person could reasonably foresee would be injured by their acts or omissions
How do the courts know if a duty of care exists?
Could have been established by existing case law
If not, the three-stage test can determine this
The three-stage test
Was the harm or loss caused reasonably foreseeable?
Was there a sufficient relationship of proximity between the claimant and the defendant for the duty to be imposed?
In all circumstances, is it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty on the defendant?
Pure Economic Loss
This is where a claimant suffers a financial loss, but not for reasons due to any injury they suffer or damage to their property
Usually, a duty of care is not imposed and damages cannot be recovered
E.g. Waller v Foot and Mouth RI (1966)
II – Breaching the duty of care
What is the standard of care?
This is an objective test
i.e. the defendant must act with the degree of care and skill expected from a reasonable person
E.g. a learner drive will still owe the same standard of care to his passengers & road users as every other driver – lack of experience is not taken into account
III – Claimant suffered loss as a result of the breach of duty
There must be a causal link between the breach of duty and the damage suffered
The negligence needed to have caused (or materially contributed to) the injury or loss sustained
If the claimant partially contributed to their own loss, this will be taken into account by the court i.e. the duty to mitigate can still apply
The Eggshell Skull Principle
The defendant must take their victim as they find them
This means that if the victim suffers a greater injury because they have a particular susceptibility or weakness, the defendant is still liable for the full extent of their injuries
E.g a weak heart or a thin skull
Psychiatric Injury
Sometimes referred to as ‘nervous shock’
More problematic to claim than for physical injury
Needs to be evidence that claimant suffered a serious psychiatric illness as a result of the loss (such as PTSD)
Primary victim – someone involved in the incident
Secondary victim – someone who is a witness to the incident or its immediate aftermath
Psychiatric Injury - Secondary victims
In order for a defendant to be liable for psychiatric injury, the claim must establish:
A medically-recognised psychiatric illness was suffered
A close tie of love and affection with someone involved in the accident
A geographical proximity to the accident (either present at the time or at its immediate aftermath)
Set out in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1991)
