Tort- Falshcards

Duty of care

neighbour test- Donoghue and Steveson. Incremental- Caparo V Dickman. Foreseeability, proximity, fair, just and reasonable to imposed a duty of care

1 of 38

Breach

this can be an act of omission. Standard based on: the reasonable person test, risk factors, character of claimant, size and magnitude of risk, cost of taking precautions and social utility.

2 of 38

Case on an ordinary person- Wells V Cooper

A door lock was replaced with the wrong size screws, a visitor came and locked the door and the lock came away in his hand resulting in him falling 4 feet from an not railed platform and he sustained injury. There was no breach

3 of 38

Case of a learner- Nettleship V Weston

Weston Weston was receiving driving lessons from Nettleship, Weston failed to straighten up after a corner and hit a lamppost which fell onto Nettleship, Weston was judged on the same level as a competent driver so a duty of care was breached

4 of 38

A case of a professional- Bolam V Barnet Hospital

A patient was undergoing electric shock therapy and was given a relaxant drug which wasn’t always given to patient due to the risk of fractures. The patient suffered broken bones but a duty of care not breached. The Doctor “acted in accordance of pra

5 of 38

A case of young people- Mullin V Richards

2 15 year old girls playing with plastic rulers, one snapped and fragments went into Mullins eye blinding her. Richards had met the duty of care required f a 15 year old girl not an adult, so duty of care was not breached

6 of 38

Special characteristics of the claimant- Paris V Stepney Borough Council

Paris was blind in one (known to employers) eye and was sent to do work on a machine involving a small risk to the eyes, no goggles were given, his good eye was damaged and he went blind so a duty of care was breached

7 of 38

A case on the size of the risk- Bolton V Stone

Ball hit a women after flying out of the cricket ground, but the ground had taken all precautions to stop this: 17 foot high fence and the wicket a long way away from the fence, this had also only happened 6 times in 30 years. Club done everything in

8 of 38

Is it practical to take precautions? Latimer V ACE

no breach. Factor flooded, water and oil slipperary, workers evactated and sawdust put down, workers allowed abck in and one slipper, court rule it was unreasonable to expect the owners to shut down the factory in order to fully clean

9 of 38

A case on social utility- Watt V Hertfordshire council

No breach as it was an emergence situation. A women was stuck under a truck a special jack needed but the vehicle was not available, flatbed truck used instead but on the way the jack slipper and fell onto watt on the way to the incident

10 of 38

"but for test"

But for your actions would the vicim end up in the same situation. Barnett V Chelsea and Kensington hospital- the patienbt would have died even if the hosptial had not been negligent

11 of 38

thin skull rule

Take your victim as you found them. smith V Leech braine, cancer on the lip due to a liquid being splashed on it due to employer negilgence, eventhough this would not have happened on a heathly person, employer held guilty

12 of 38

Remotness of damages

you can only cliam for harm that is reasonably forseeable. Wagon Mound-ship oil relased into harbour and caught fire due to people welding damaging a boat, the harm cuased by the oil forseeable but the harm caused by the fire wasnt.

13 of 38

Remotness of damages- another case study

Bradford V Robinson Pentals- type of harm must be forseeable but severity of it does not. Forst bite caused by a no heater in a lory, forseeable he would be cold but not that injured.

14 of 38

Res ispa loquitur

The thing that speaks for itslef. In Scott v London & St. Katherine Docks the court said res ipsa loquitur as sacks of sugar do not simply fall from the window without someone being negligent.

15 of 38

Res ispa loquitur- another case study

mahon V Osborn- reverses the burden of proof and applies if the accident is under control of only one person and the harm caused could only have occoured if D. was negligent- like leaving a pair of sissors in a patient during an opperation

16 of 38

Novous actus interveniens

Breaks the chain of causation

17 of 38

Contributary Negligence

Damage amount reduced as claiment partially responsible for their injuriue too, froome V Butcher- not wearing a seat belt so damages reduced by 15%

18 of 38

Consent

The claiment can not claim dammages and it is their fault.Miller V Morris- 2 drunk men got into a plane as one of them was a pilot, he carshed the plane and the passanger died. court of appeal ruled it was the passengers fault as he knew he was drunk

19 of 38

Forseeability

the harm cuased must be forseeable. Jolley V London Borough of Sutton, it was forseeable that kids would play on an abandoned boat + could suffer injury but the specific harm caused didnot have to be forseeable

20 of 38

What are the 2 Occupiers Liability acts

Occupiers Liability act 1957 deals with lawful vistors and occupiers liability Act 1984 deals with unlawful visitors

21 of 38

Who is an occupier?

someone who is in control of the premises but they do not have to be the owner or tenant

22 of 38

What are premises?

S1(3) "fixed or moverable structure, including any vessle vehicle or aircraft"

23 of 38

What does S2(2) outline?

"to take such care a sin all circumstances.... is reasonable to see that the visitor would be reasonably safe for the purpose for which he is invited...to be there"

24 of 38

What does S2(1) outline?

"an occupier owes the same duty, the common duty, the common duty of care, to all his visitors except in so far as he is free to do and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor by agreement or otherwise"

25 of 38

what is the standard of care expected and what must the occupier guard against?

It is thta of the reasonable man and the occupier must gaurd against forseeable harm. Darley V National Trust, C sued after her huspand drowned in the pond she said there was a lack of signs warning of drowing. court of appeal held drowing as obvious

26 of 38

case study on licensees

Lowery V Walker 1911- D liable for injury ot people crossing his land caused by a wild horse which he had put there, as he did not object to C usinmg the short cut, C had a licence

27 of 38

Under which section are children cover and what does it say about them?

S2(3) " the occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults (so) the premises must be reasonably safe for a child of that age" Glasgow Corporation V Taylor, council liable when a child ate poisneous berrys from a tree

28 of 38

Very young children

Council not liable for injuries caused to a 5 year old who was in the care of a 7 year old as he should've been under parent supervision

29 of 38

Is the liablility of an occupier reduced when parents are present?

Yes E.G. Ross V monkey madhouse 2014- the occupier liablity was reduced as a 7 year old girls parents were present

30 of 38

Independant Contractors

S2(3) tradesman should"appreciate and gaurd against any special risks" occupier not liable if the risk had been stated to the tradesman and are risks you would expect tradesman to gaurd against.they are liable for loss or injuries if their negligence

31 of 38

Independant contractors- case study

Roles V Nathan 1963- occupier not liable when a chimeny sweep asphyxiated as fumes were something that they would be expected to gaurd against

32 of 38

What if someone was injured by the Negigence of an independant contractor?

S2(4) independent contractors may be liable, it must be reasonable to trust their work. Hasledine V Daw and Son Ltd, cliament killed when a lift dropped nto the bottom of a lift shaft having been maintained by the defendant

33 of 38

What if someone was injured by the Negigence of an independant contractor

the contractor must be compitnet. Bottomley V Todmorden cricket club, cliament injured when firework display went wrong. The stunbt team had no insurance so the Cricket club was held liable.

34 of 38

What if someone was injured by the Negigence of an independant contractor

the occupier must check the work has been carried out properly. Woodward V the mayor of hastings local authority held liable after a child was injuried on a steps left icy after snow clearance

35 of 38

Warning notices

S2(4) a warning is ineffective unless" in all the circumstances it is left enough tp enable the visitor to be reasonably safe" Rae V mars

36 of 38

Exclusion clauses

S2(1) OLA 1957 an exclusion clause is the term in the contract, the part who puts it there seeks to limit or totally exclude his liablitiy in the event that he breaches his contract.

37 of 38

What does S2(10 unfair contract terms outline

A person is unable to restrict their liability resulting from death or perosnal injury caused by their negliegence

38 of 38

Get Revising

Tort- Falshcards

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: