Notes on everything for the Unit 4 exam except the essays.

Notes on the law for tort for the unit 4 exam.

HideShow resource information
Preview of Notes on everything for the Unit 4 exam except the essays.

First 377 words of the document:

1
Tort Revision Summery
Answering Problem Questions
Does the problem relate to?
Defective premises ­ Occupiers Liability
An escape of something dangerous ­ Rylands v Fletcher
An indirect interference e.g. noise ­ Nuisance
Defective Products ­ Consumer Protection Act 1987
Carelessness ­ Negligence
o Property damage and personal injury ­ Caparo v Dickman
o Psychiatric illness (primary victims) ­ Caparo v Dickman
o Psychiatric illness (secondary victims) ­ Alcock v CC S. Yorks
o Pure economic loss (negligent act) ­ Murphy v Brentwood DC, White v Jones
o Pure economic loss (negligent statement) ­ Hedley Byrne v Heller
Occupiers Liability
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (Liability for visitors)
Visitors have either express (verbal or written) or implied (by conduct or circumstances) to
be on the land.
S2.1 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 -The occupier owes `a common duty of care', to
visitors and liability will arise if the duty is breached.
S2.2 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - `...to take such care, as in all the circumstances, is
reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe'
S1.3 Occupiers Liability Act 1957- Premises include ­ Land, buildings, and `any fixed or
moveable structure including any vessel vehicle or aircraft.'
Who is an occupier is defined in common law as the person `in control' of the premises ­
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation
It is possible for there to be more than one occupier e.g. the landlord and the tenant when
the landlord retains some of the land ­ Wheat v Lacon & Co Ltd
S2.3 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 ­ `an occupier must be prepared for children to be
less careful than adults' _- Glasgow Corporation v Taylor however for very young
children the occupier may be entitled to assume the child should be accompanied ­ Phipps v
Rochester Corporation.
S2.3 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 ­ Where the occupier has engaged someone to do
some work and they are injured in the process, the worker has to guard against any known
risks connected to the job ­ Roles v Nathan
S2.4 Occupiers Liability Act 1957 ­ This relates to work done by independent
contractors making the premises defective. If the work is specialised then the contractor

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

­ Haseldine v Daw, however if the work can be easily checked the occupier
will be liable ­ Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
Defences for occupiers liability for visitors are, S2.4 warnings (Roles v Nathan), S2.3
contributory negligence and S2.5 volenti non fit injuria. Damages and injunction are the remedies
available.
Occupiers Liability Act 1984 (liability for trespassers)
A trespasser is someone on land without permission and where the presence is unknown or
objected to by the occupier.…read more

Page 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

There must be an escape ­ Read v Lyons (Not an explosion)
Property damage only and only if it is reasonably foreseeable ­ Wagon Mound, the defences are
act of a stranger (Box v Jub), act of God (Nicholls v Marsland), contributory negligence (Law
Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945), volenti non fit injuria, statutory authority (Green
v Chelsea Waterworks) and C's abnormally sensitive circumstances (Eastern and South African
Telegraph Co v Capetown Tramways).…read more

Page 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

Consumer Protection Act 1987
S2 [1] Where any damage is caused wholly or partly by a defect in a product, every person
to whom subsection 2 applies, shall be liable for the damage.
Strict liability (no fault required)
Damage
o Death and all personal injury
o Property damage over £275
o The courts have not yet agreed whether pure economic loss can be recovered under
the act.
o Damage to the defective product itself is not covered.…read more

Page 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

Tested objectively ­ to apply ask the question `does d belong to a class of
people who was likely to suffer if d carried out their careless act?' ­
Donoghue v Stevenson
o Proximity
C must show that they are someone who was that closely and directly
affected by D's act that D should have had them in contemplation of mind ­
Lord Atkin's neighbour test as illustrated in Bourhill v Young.…read more

Page 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

­ Wagon
Mound
Psychiatric Damage
Primary Victims are people who suffer psychiatric damage as well as personal injury or fear
for their own lives ­ Dulieu v White. This is tested under the Caparo v Dickman rules ­ see
above
Secondary Victims are people who suffer psychiatric damage as a result of seeing someone
else suffering personal injury or fears for another person's life ­ Hanbrook v Stokes. The
current law comes from Alcock v CC South Yorkshire and has 5 elements.
1.…read more

Page 7

Preview of page 7

Here's a taster:

HOWEVER!!!
If there is a high probability that claimant would rely on the particular statement then a
duty may be owed ­ Smith v Eric Bush
An additional example is when an ex-employer negligently provides a bad reference they
will be liable for economic loss subsequently suffered by the ex-employee ­ Spring v
Guardian Assurance.…read more

Page 8

Preview of page 8

Here's a taster:

Damages can be categorised into general damages which are calculated by the judge
as they are complex to measure in monetary terms or special damages which are calculated by the
claimant as they are easy to work out. (If there are any specific amounts, particularly in pure
economic loss questions, be sure to mention them).
Example injunctions paragraph
An injunction is a court order which prohibits an action or forces something to be done.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »