Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Year 1 - Business Law > sem 2 - lesson 4 > Flashcards

sem 2 - lesson 4 Flashcards

1
Q

once duty of care estbalished we must consider whether there has been a

A

BREACH of that duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

main test for breach of duty of care

A

reasonable test - behave as reasonable person would

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what does hall v brooklands auto racing lcub 1933 tell us

A

reasonable man is

  • the ordinary man
  • the avergae man or
  • the man on the clapham omnibus

+

reaosnable man in thatsituation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

key thing hall v brooklands shows us about a particualr kind of perosn

A
  • who a reasobale person is
  • how they would behave
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what happens in Bagle v Maccies 2022

A

coffe sold in hot cups casuing injuries

court says mcdonalds ddnt breach duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

why did v=court say macdonalds not gonna be held for duty of care in bagle v mcdonalds

A

manufacturers not gonna be held repsonisble for risk that consumer sshoudl obviously be aware of

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what was a rlevant fact/thing that the boggle v maccies case establisejd

A

if coffee was sold at low temp where no one would be injured no one would buy the coffee

so estblished if gonna sell the coffee got to be hot enough

court says risk so obvious we’re not gonna hold anyone accountable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

if a reaosnlabe perosn would not forsee injury or harm arising out of injury then what would happen to teh defendant

A

they wouldn’t be held responsible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what should we always think in situationis wewe tryan see if there has ben a breahc of duty

A

what would be reasonable in this situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what does walker v northimberland city council 1995 show

A

can be held responsible for psychiatric harm too

+

if you’ve been notified for particular kinds of risks reasonable for you to take precautions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

what happned in walker v nirthumberland council

A

walker - local social worrker - overworked sufffere nervous breakdown as result of extremme stress at work and burnour

his employer was notified and he came back

walker got enittled to more support than before - but it wasnt forthcoming

when he went ack to work had a second breakdown

council held repsonisble ecause they were informed about the risk , they knew about it and it was reaosnablr to take extra precautions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what may have raised the bar and standard of reasonableness in the walker v northumberalnd council

A

if htey had specific extra info

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

4 what are factors to be weighee in establishing a breach

A

Magnitute of harm & practicality of precautions

Special charactersitics of the claimant and of the defendant

inexperience

the social utility fo the defendants action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what is the case for magnitude of harm and practicality of precautions

A

Bolton v Stone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what id magnitude of harm and practicality of precautions

A

what does it mean to breach standard of care acoridn got reasonable perosn and how big is risk

how big is the risk and what is the threat and practical precautions - where is hte balance of reasonable ness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what happened in bolton v stone

A

cricket ball hit someone causing injury (think cricket thinkboltt)

question - is cricket team reesponsible for damge/have they breached duty of care to people who live neaby

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

how many things do court consider in teh bolton v stone case

A

2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what 2 things do court consider in bolton v stone case

A

magnitude of harm - (how big is risk

practicaltiy of cautions ( what did they do/can be done to mitigate risk)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what did court say for the two considerations in bolton v stone

A

magnitude of risk - over 50 years of cricket field being there it been know that balls sometimes leave the field, but 1st time someone been hurt

praccticaltity of aution - they did a lot made 17ft ence above and 8ft fence below so they did try guard against all kind of risk to peoplew

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what was the question after considering the magnitude and practiclaoity of cautinons in bolton v stone

A

have tehy done waht they need to do reasonably ro elimate risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what did court day in t eh end / answer to the question

A

ricket club did what could reasonably be expected of them and s they not repsonsible for the damge that has been caused

they met reaosnable standard given teh size of risk and and what is avaialbel for them to do

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what is teh additonal factor in the blton v stone case hint :value

A

club had social value
court wants circket club to exist
if cricket club exists there is gonna be some risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

what case do we use for social utility of a defendants action

A

Watt v Hertfordshire Coucnil 1954v

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

what is socialt utliity of a defendant acion means

A

if someone gets hurt and wants to bring a claim of negligence against you the question is asked how valuable it was that you were doing what you were doing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

watt v hertfordhire coucil 1954

A

firemen respond to car accident

they were nearest repsondents w the equiment needed but didnt hve right vehicle to transport it

so firefighters held on and one got a serious leg injury so tried to claim financial compensation saying firefighers didnt take sufficeint precautinosn causing him harm

but court saidfd 0 how noble were goals og the fire authourity and why did they subject firefighters to this kind of risk - to save someones life who they did by transporting this equipment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what was result of watts v hertfordhire council and why

A

ff got no compensation

casue authority is found not tohave breached its duty

did what was reasonably expected for them to do

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

whats trhe bottom line of social value

A

some things services/jobs/placces proivde useful functios and we wantthm to exist thereifre we hav eto assume some risk into teh process

which will be factored into whether or not you’ve fallen below the appropriate standard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

what question does special cahrateristics of a claimant and defendant show

A

does claimant/ defendant have anything in particular about them that might alter required reasonableness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

what case do we use for speicla characterisitcs of a cllimaant and defendant - claimant side

A

PARIS V STEPNEY BOROUGH CONCUL

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

what happned in paris v stepney borugh council

A

paris only for one eye
was working in garage
got a piece of metal in one yee and was completley blinded

goes to claim injury but garage say no one got to wear safety goggles we dont think it is reasonable

31
Q

in the case of paris v stepney borugh council if someoen had sight in both eyes what wouldthe ocmpnesation be like and why

A

compensation would be less

because they would only be partially hurt

32
Q

what did court say in case of paris v stepney

A

may be considered reasonable as standard for teh avg employee but when ot soeone in employment w special cahractersitics and only got use of one eye - standard of what you think is reasonable changes in relation to them

so it was reasonable to provide goggles and you were aware of additional risk faced by person

33
Q

reasoable standard can be x depending on who you are

A

reduced

34
Q

waht case shows us where speial cahractersitics of climand and defendant is - reduced

A

mullins v richard

35
Q

whampum in mullins v richard

A

2 girls at school have fight w ruler

piece of ruler goes in one girls eye and she looses partial sight

brings claim agaisnt other girl saying you owe me a duty of care and breahed it when we fought

36
Q

what does court say in mullins v richard

A

got to assess fact these were 15 year olds- so they would have lower understanding of risk and danger than an older person

casue fednadnt young we not gonna say they fell belowe reaosable standard epeected of a 15 year old

37
Q

gie a scenario or ereample wehre the 15 year olds could have fallen below the standard of reasonableness or someone else in situation

A

if they were playing w dire

or if she was in fight w adult - adult wouldve fallen belowe reasoannel stadard of care

38
Q

what case do we use for inexpereicne

A

nettleship v weston 1971

39
Q

what does the inexperience case highlight

A

if you driving as a learner

standard of reasosnabelsness expected of you is that of reasonably competne driver -regrdless of inexperience

40
Q

the inexpreience case is the same for what kind of positons

A

trainees

41
Q

why is the inexperience case is the same for trainee positions + additionality

A

because supposed to be in tlaw protected by a senior e.g instructor sitting next to you

so you not alone

+ for whole systemt o work there is lots of insure against risk

so standard we expect is that of reaosnably competent road users

42
Q

professional person

A
43
Q

for profesional person what si the standard of care

A

defendant must show defree of compeltence usaully to bbe expectd of an ordniary professional skilled in that profession

44
Q

in short for a professional what is the standard of care

A

that of a resonBLY COPMETENT professinoal

45
Q

bolam v firern banet hospital amangment comitte 1957

A

treatment for illness needs electric shocks administered to body

either gt given relaxants or not

relaxant as have extremem movements and can fracture/injure yourself

but relaxants ahve a small fatal risk

in bolam case got severla broken bones

46
Q

what did court say in Bolam v fruern barnet hospital mangement

A

in case where there are two differnt opnion jsut becuase pyshia picks one and not the otehr don’t make them competent

if both approaches are reaosnably accepted either approach could be justifiable - ust casue something went wrong dont mean it was incompetence or unreasonable

espeeciallty if been ntofied of diff risks and there isn’t a perfect option

47
Q

proviso

A

where conflicting medical opinion exists

practice adopted must be based on logical and defensible grounds

i.e can it withstand logical analysis

48
Q

what happened in bolitho v city and ahckenty health authority

A

child died

phsyciian was suposed to come attend but pager was low on battery so it didnt beat

claim purused against hospital but hosital said even if we arrived we wouldnt have intubated this cild it wouldn’t have made any sense to do that

you may have wanted them to do that but it wouldnt have made logical sense based on logical oopnion

child was already w something fatal

49
Q

causationin law and remoteness of damafe

A
50
Q

if someone fallen belowe reasosnable standard they hahvhe

A

breached duty of care

51
Q

to get over the line in negligence we have to think about causation which means

A

how closely connected is negligent act and climnts harm

is there a link sufficiently close in law/fact

52
Q

what are the two things we look at in causation

A

factual causation

legal causation

53
Q

in factual causation what test do we look for

A

but for

54
Q

what is but for test

A

would claimnat have incurrd the damage ‘but for’ the defendants negligence

55
Q

what case do we use in the but for test

A

barnett v chelsea & kensington hospital managment comittee

56
Q

what happned in barnett v chelse and kengisngot hospitla

A

guy shows up apparently drunk(but had arsenic poisining) so hospital turned him away

he died a few hours later

barnett purseud hospital saying you breached standard of reasnoably competne professionals when you ffailed to identify him as suffering from arsenic poisingin

57
Q

wwhat did court say in barnet v kensington and chelsea

A

yah but hospital suceeded on the causation issue the claimant’s estate can’t prove causation casue at that point the posingin was already fatal

if he was diagnosed then and there he would have died anyway

so their negligence didnt casue his harm

58
Q

legal caustion relates to

A

the remoteness of damage

59
Q

what is the remoteness of damage

A

damage not reasonably forseeable is too remote for the breach and therefore not recoverable

60
Q

what case do we use for legal caustion - the remoteness of damage

A

overseas tankship ltd v morts dock & engineering co

(the wagan mound)

61
Q

in terms of remotness of damag we are only interestd in

A

damage that is reasonably forseeable

62
Q

what haooend in wagon mound case

A

oil spillage

business nearby cicerned it will start fire

it was estalished the oil i svirtully non flammable

weldig firm on edge of harbour been expeling spark but also expellingothe rhtifns whihc ignies oil

63
Q

wha twasdeicded in the wagnmound case

A

it was decide they were a step away from direct contact between oild and fire

the damge was to remite

the risk of flammabilty s low that idea other factors could come together ot casue exact chemical repsonesthat would igninte the oil is too remote for the damge to e something the tanker copny are repsonisble for

damage got to be reaosnably forseeable

64
Q

civil liability

A
65
Q

(civil liability) once the damage has been established that the damge was a reasonably forseeable consequence of the defendants breach, ….

A

the defendant will be liable for all the damage of that type no mater what the extent is

66
Q

you’ve got to take the victim …

A

As you find them

67
Q

youve got totak evictim as yu find them what does this mean

A

if you punch someone they might be someone who gets bruised and is fine you resposnbel for commiting the act

if you punch them they might get black ye but same punch kills a person - you resposnibe for whatever happens to them - whether blak eye or they die

67
Q

what does the egg shell skull rule pricniple illustrate

A

the act you nuh know fragilitie of the victim

67
Q

what is the cases use for civil liabiltiy

A

smith v leech brain and co 1962

vacwell engineering co v bdh chemicals 1971

68
Q

whats case for eg shell skull rule

A

page v smith 1995

69
Q

smith v lechbrain & co

A

guy at work got molten iron on his lip

already had prercancerus cell i his lip (that no one knew about)

burn excarbetaed his cancer and he died of it

courts found phsycial injry from molten burn was foorseeable

forseableharm has been established - so ffarage full repsonsible forhis death

70
Q

vavwell enginereing co v bdh chemicals ltd 1971 + outcome

A

lab got sent ampools of chemicla v lil signs that said they were hazardous in water

scientist where washing them up in water and exploded w such force it destroyed buldings and killed scientist

outcoe - once responsible for damge arising from failure to properly label products

you responsible for lll the damage so BDH repsonsibl

71
Q

Page V Smith

A

guy in car accidnet and he’d been suffering from chroinc fatigue syndrime

got into car accident whihc excarbeated chronic and permanent condition

court says you can imagine if you’re ina car accidnt youll be physcially harmed , it dont matter the the kind of phsycial harm that is suffered and dont matter whether unexpected o odd

so defendant i repsonisble for excarbetaed develoepmtn of fatigur condition casue they respponisble for wahtever physical injury arose as a resultt of car accident.

questio is wwhat type of harm are you suffering and is it reasonably orseeable as a result of somenes action that falls below reasonabl standard

Year 1 - Business Law (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions