Caparo Tripartite Test - Caparo v Dickman [1990] - Caparo brought a company on bad accountant information provided by Dickman
1 of 18
Caparo Test Question 1
1. "Would the reasonable man foresee the harm to that particular claimant?
2 of 18
Caparo Test Question 2
2. Proximity of relationship: "a reasonable area for the imposition of liability" Lord Oliver in Alcock - The type and seriousness of harm affects the area of liability. As does the relationship between D + C and the scope of the DoC
3 of 18
Caparo Test Question 3
3. Is it "Fair, Just and Reasonable" to impose liability? - Policy long stop
4 of 18
Nonfeasance - Pure Omissions
Lord Goff in Smith v Littlewoods [1987] - "Common Law does not impose liablilty for Pure Ommissions"
5 of 18
No general duty to prevent others from causing harm
Lamb v Camden LBC [1981] - Council broke a water pipe, squatters moved in when residents vacated and caused more damage
6 of 18
3 Situations where Liability can be imposed for the actions of a TP
1. SR between D + C Stansbie v Thomas [1948] 2. SR between D + TP Home Office v Dorset Yacht [1970] 3. Creating a Source of Danger sparked by TP - Haynes v Harwood [1935]
7 of 18
Failure to take reasonable steps to abate a danger created by TP on D's premises, can impose liability for D
Clark Fixing Ltd v Dudley MBC [2001]
8 of 18
Judges cannot be sued, but Lawyers can
Judges cannot be sued (Sirros v Moore [1996] but Lawyers can Hall v Simons [2002]
9 of 18
Advisory Body Liability is Lower than Most
Advisory bodies (as they are volunteers) get the relaxed Hill Criteria - Marc Rich & Co [1996]
10 of 18
Armed Forces Liability
Armed forces owe no duty of care in battle conditions but do in down time - Mulachy [1996] /Jebson [2000]
11 of 18
Ambulance Liability
Ambulances are health and not a rescue service - Kent v Griffith [2000]
12 of 18
Fire Brigade/Coast Guard Liability
Fire Service are not liable as long as they don't make the situation worse and their attendance does not fulfill proximity - Capitol and Counties PLC v Hampshire CC [1997] - Same for Coastguard - OLL v ** of Home Dep [1997]
13 of 18
Established Liability Scenario's for LA's
1. Education: Phelps v Hilingdon LBC [2001] 2. Health: Stovin v Wise [1996] 3. Where the LA has created the danger: Kane v New Forest LBC [2002]
14 of 18
Objections to Imposing Liability on LA's
1. Defensive Practices 2. Expensive to Public 3. Waste of LA time 4. Courts don't want to make policy decisions 5. Distorts statutory protection
15 of 18
Police Liablity on "Operational Negligence"
Liable for "operational negligence" which is damage caused by negligent performance of day to day activites - Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire Pollice - CS gas caused fire
16 of 18
Police Liability on Policy Negligence
Not liable for errors made in the course of fulfilling general duties of investigating and preventing crime - Hill v CC of West Yorkshire [1988] and the Van Colle and Smith Cases [2008] (Osman Threshold)
17 of 18
Osman Threshold - Osman v UK [2002]
"The authorities knew or ought to have known a the time of existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual" (Van Colle and Smith application)
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Caparo Test Question 1
Back
1. "Would the reasonable man foresee the harm to that particular claimant?
Comments
No comments have yet been made