Tortious Liability

HideShow resource information
What is the Tort Calculation?
Duty of care + breach of duty + damage = tortious liability
1 of 38
Which case established the Neighbour Principal?
Donoghue v Stevenson
2 of 38
What was held in the case that established the Neighbour Principal, and which judge?
Lord Atkins: "you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that you can reasonably foresee might injure your neighbour"
3 of 38
Who is your neighbour?
Lord Atkins: "any person(s) that are closely and directly affected by your acts or omissions"
4 of 38
What part of the tort calculation does the Caparo Test come under?
Duty of care
5 of 38
What case established the Caparo Test?
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
6 of 38
What are the three parts to the Caparo Test?
1) The loss to the claimant was reasonably foreseeable 2) There was sufficient proximity between the claimant and the defendent 3) Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendent
7 of 38
What is the case and ratio for the first section of the Caparo Test?
Kent v Griffiths: it is reasonably foreseeable that if the ambulance was late this would cause further harm to the victim
8 of 38
What is the case and ratio for the second section of the Caparo Test that concerns with a 'realtionship'?
Osman v Ferguson: there was proximity between the police and the victim as the police knew he was a possible victim, showing a relationship
9 of 38
What is the case and ratio for the second section of the Caparo Test that concerns with 'space and time'?
Bourhill v Young: there was no proximity through space and time between the claimant and defendent as she was not involved in the accident and the body had been removed before she arrived
10 of 38
What is the case and ratio for the third section of the Caparo Test?
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire: It was not fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the police on the gorunds of public policy and the floodgate issues would lead to defensive policing
11 of 38
What part of the tort calculation does the Reasonable Man test come under?
Breach of duty
12 of 38
What case established the Reasonable Man test, and what was held?
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.: "negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something a reasonable man would not have"
13 of 38
What are the two parts to the Reasonable Man test?
1) What is the degree of skill expected from a reasonable man? 2) What is the degree of risk the reasonable man puts the claimant in?
14 of 38
Under degree of skill, what is the case and ratio of an adult professional?
Bolam v Frien Hospital Management Committee: "it is sufficient if he excercises the ordinary skill of an ordianry competent man exercising that particular art"
15 of 38
Under degree of skill, what is the case and ratio of a trainning professional?
Wilsher v Essex AHA: "trainees are compared to a man who is fully qualified and thus the same standard of care is expected"
16 of 38
Under degree of skill, what is the case and ratio of adults generally?
Wells v Cooper: "the defendent was compared against the standards of a reasonably competent carpenter but not a professional as it was a job that a reasonable man migh do for himself"
17 of 38
Under degree of skill, what is the case and ratio of a learner?
Nettleship v Weston: "even a learner driver is expected to owe the same standard of care as an ordianry driver"
18 of 38
Under degree of skill, what is the case and ratio of children?
Mullins v Richards: "the risk is not one that a reasonable 15 year old would appreciate and therefore is no liable"
19 of 38
What 4 parts are there to 'degree of risk'?
1) Special characteristics of the claimant 2) Magnitude of the risk 3) Cost of precautions 4) Social utility
20 of 38
What case (and ratio) demonstrates 'special characteristics of the claimant'?
Paris v Stepney Borough Council: "a reasonable employer would have provided protective eyewear and the claimant was more vulnerable than the average person"
21 of 38
What case (and ratio) demonstrates a low 'magnitude of risk'?
Bolton v Stone: "the magnitude of the risk was low as there had only been 6 balls hit out the ground in 25 years"
22 of 38
What case (and ratio) demonstrates a high 'magnitude of risk'?
Miller v Jackson: "the magnitude of the risk was high as there had been 9 balls over the fence a year"
23 of 38
What case (and ratio) demonstrates 'cost of precautions'?
Latimer v AEC: "the risk could only be eliminated by closing the factory; this was an unreasonable cost to the defendent"
24 of 38
What case (and ratio) demonstrates 'social utility'?
Miller v Jackson: "the cricket ground was a high social utility so an injunction was not granted"
25 of 38
What Act supports 'social utility'?
The Compensation Act 2006 - the courts must take into consideration that a breach of duty might prevent or alter an activity to a particular extend
26 of 38
What part of the tort calculator does Causation come under?
Damage
27 of 38
What are the two parts to Causation in Civil?
1) Factual Causation (the but for test) 2) Legal Causation (remoteness of damage and the egg shell rule)
28 of 38
What case (and ratio) established the 'but for' test in Factual Causation?
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee: "but for the defendent's negligence in treatment for arsenic poisoning the victim would not have suffered the damage"
29 of 38
What case (and ratio) extendes the 'but for' test in Factual Causation?
Wilsher v Essex AHA: "the doctor is not liable as it cannot be proved to be the only cause of the blindness so but for test fails" (multiple causes)
30 of 38
What case (and ratio) demonstrates Legal Causation?
Wagon Mound: "the fire caused by a welder's sparks lighting cotton that set light to an oil spill was not reasonably foreseeable so the damage was too remote to claim"
31 of 38
What case (and ratio) extended Legal Causation?
Hughes v Lord Avocate: "as long as the type of damage is foreseeable the method the damage is sustained is not relevant"
32 of 38
What case (and ratio) provides an exception for Legal Causation?
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd.: "the employer was liable as death from cancer was not foreseeable but the burn was, and you have to take your claimant as you find them"
33 of 38
What does Res Ipsa Loquitur mean?
The thing speaks for itself
34 of 38
When is Res Ipsa Loquitur used?
When the negligence is so obvious or when it is difficult for the claimant to prove the defendents negligence (for example, was unconscious during surgery)
35 of 38
What case established the 3 part test for the application of Res Ipsa Loquitur?
Scott v London and St Katharine Docks
36 of 38
What is the 3 part test for the application of Res Ipsa Loquitur?
1) The defendent must be in contorl of the situation that caused injury to the claimant 2) the injury was more likely than not to have been caused by negligence 3) there was no other explanation
37 of 38
In what case (and ratio) did the court apply the 3 part test for Res Ipsa Loquitur?
Mahon v Osbourne: "Res Ipsa Loquitur applied as a swab is left in a patient can only be due to negligence and the hospital where in full control when the negligent act occurred"
38 of 38

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Which case established the Neighbour Principal?

Back

Donoghue v Stevenson

Card 3

Front

What was held in the case that established the Neighbour Principal, and which judge?

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Who is your neighbour?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

What part of the tort calculation does the Caparo Test come under?

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Law of Tort resources »