Tort
- Created by: Holly Jackson
- Created on: 25-03-15 17:23
View mindmap
- Tort
- Duty of Care
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Snail in Ginger Beer
- Duty of Care was owed
- Lord Atkin: Neighbour Principle
- "Closely and directly affected by my act"
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Snail in Ginger Beer
- Duty of Care was owed
- Caparo Test
- Reasonably Foreseeable
- Jolley v Sutton LBC
- Young boy was paralysed when a boat he was playing on slipped
- Foreseeable that children would play on it
- Duty of Care was owed
- Jolley v Sutton LBC
- Proximity
- Bourhill v Young
- Woman suffered nervous shock and gave birth to a stillborn
- Woman saw the aftermath of a motorcycle accident
- No Duty of Care was owed
- Rules of "time and space"
- Rules of "time and space"
- Bourhill v Young
- Fair, just and reasonable
- Is there a public body to protect?
- A Duty of Care was not owed
- Would the floodgates open to other claims?
- A Duty of Care was not owed
- Hill v CC of West York
- Police failed to capture Yorkshire Ripper, despite having sufficient evidence
- C was the mother of the last victim
- Is there a public body to protect?
- Reasonably Foreseeable
- Donoghue v Stevenson
- Breach of Duty
- Remoteness of Harm
- Stone v Bolton
- Cricketball over a 17ft fence
- Only happened 6 times in 30 years
- No Breach of Duty
- If there is a big risk, then D is expected to take more care
- Stone v Bolton
- Degree of Risk
- How serious is the potential harm?
- Paris v Stepney BC
- C was already blind in one eye
- C lost sight in other eye when a piece of metal flew into it whilst welding at work
- There was a breach of duty as D failed to supply C with goggles
- Does C have any "special characteristics" that need to be considered?
- Paris v Stepney BC
- C was already blind in one eye
- C lost sight in other eye when a piece of metal flew into it whilst welding at work
- There was a breach of duty as D failed to supply C with goggles
- Paris v Stepney BC
- Cost of Precaution
- Latimer
- C slipped on an oil spillage
- D had layed down sawdust
- There was no Breach of Duty as D had taken necessary precautions and to close the factory would be unreasonable
- Has D taken any precautions?
- Are the precautions taken in in proportion to the risk?
- Latimer
- Potential benefits
- If there are potential benefits for the society then this may outweigh the risk
- Watt v Hertfordshire CC
- Fireman was injured when a heavy jack swung round and hit him
- No Breach of Duty as there was the potential to save lives, so the risk was justified
- Remoteness of Harm
- Causation
- "But For" Test
- Barnett
- C's husband was sent home from hospital without treatment after suffering arsenic poisening
- D was not liable as C's husband would have died anyway
- Not too remote
- Barnett
- Thin Skull Rule
- Smith v Leech Brain Co
- C's husband had a cancerous vulnerability
- Molten metal spitted onto his lip
- D was liable as they should have taken higher precautions
- D must take C as they find him
- Smith v Leech Brain Co
- Reasonable Foreseeable
- Time and space
- Was the type of damage foreseeable?
- Wagon Mound No.1
- A boat in a harbour spilt oil into the water
- 2 days later the oil caught on fire when another boat started doing welding work
- D was not liable because it was two days later
- "But For" Test
- Damages
- Mitigating loss
- C musttake reasonable steps to reduce expenses
- Special damages
- Loss of earnings
- Medical expenses
- Cunningham v Harrison
- C attempted to claim for a housekeeper and 2 nurses to sleep at his house to look after him
- Unreasonably large
- Cunningham v Harrison
- General damages
- Pecuniary
- Future loss of earnings
- Non-pecuniary (non-financial)
- Pain and suffering
- Loss of amenity
- Injury itself
- Pecuniary
- Mitigating loss
- Tracking
- Small Claims
- Up to £10,000
- £1,000 for personal injuries claims
- Heard in private by a district judge
- No Costs Rule
- Fast
- £10,000 to £25,000
- Heard in an open court by a circuit judge
- More formal procedure
- Max 1 day to be heard and only 1 expert witness
- Multi
- above £25,000
- Usually heard in the County court, however in cases over £50,000 case will be heard in High Court
- Complex cases
- Case Management
- Small Claims
- Duty of Care
Comments
No comments have yet been made