2017 cases tort Flashcards

Question

Watt v Herts cc 1954

Answer 1

Breach of duty/standard of care/ defendants objective (socially desirable activity) Fire brigade trying to help and one of them was injured

Answer 2

Breach of duty/standard of care/ cost of avoiding the harm Slippery floor, sawdust but not enough to cover whole floor. C slipped. D not liable

Answer 3

Causation in fact But for test Mr Barnett work have died anyway Not guilty

Answer 4

Where the injury is "indivisible" Multiple potential causes of harm More probable. Than not Prem baby died . 5 possible causes therefore HA not liable as claimant could not prove that the o2 killed him (20%)

Answer 5

Successive causes of harm Injured at work then 2nd accident 3 year later Claimant entitled to be compensated for both

Answer 6

Multiple tortfeasors For mesothelioma, any D satisfying the test for material increase in risk is liable for all the damage (ie jointly and severally) and can claim proportionately from the other Ds And s3 Compensation Act 2006

Answer 7

Causation in fact Material increase in risk C cleaned brick kilns. Post work exposure to dust materially increased risk of dermatitis so even though other factors were also involved, d was liable to him

Answer 8

Break in chain - d not liable Intervening acts of the claimant Going down steep steps with dodgy leg

Answer 9

Break in chain Intervening acts of a 3rd party Broke chain of causation Knightly v Johns [1982], the defendant had driven negligently and had blocked a tunnel. The police then drove the wrong way down the tunnel to block the other end of the tunnel as a result of which another accident occurred in which the police officer was injured. The defendant was held not liable for those injuries.

Answer 10

No break in chain Intervening act of the claimant Hol held that the suicide of the cs husband was not a break and was a FORSEEABLE consequence following an industrial injury

Answer 11

Negligent medical treatment (causation) The doctor's actions did not break the chain of causation but the Bank was entitled to a contribution from the Trust to reflect the proportion of pain, suffering and loss of amenity caused by them.

Answer 12

Causation in law Foreseeability of type of injury "If the type of harm is forseeable the D will be liable for all of it"

Answer 13

Thin skull rule Burn to lip turned cancerous. Predisposition to cancer but D liable anyway as it had to take him as it found him.

Answer 14

Thin skull rule Extends even to a claimants impecuniousity Cs car damaged by Ds negligence and c didn't have enough money to hire a car at normal rates. He has to hire one under a more expensive credit hire scheme. Hol held that theses higher costs were fully recoverable as c was innocent and his lack of money meant he had to get a replacement car with higher charges.

Answer 15

Vicarious liability "A frolic of ones own" Employer NOT vicariously liable Employer not liable for an accident which occurred on an unauthorised lunch break 7 miles away from where he was meant to be.

Answer 16

Vicarious liability Relationship "akin to employment" Organisation WAS vicariously liable JGE - and related to the employment (lester)

Answer 17

Vicaroius liability Multiple test- this is now widely used instead of the other 2 tests Based on the "economic reality" of the situation which means that the court will look at ALL THE CIRCUMSTaNCES in which the person works i.e.: control issues, how status defined in contract, how he is paid, whether he pays his own tax and NI. In this case, court found lorry driver was self employed.

Answer 18

Vicarious liability Organisation test- used as sometimes control test inappropriate where employee a skilled professional. Person is an employee if he is "part of the organisation". It was held here that a hospital authority was vicariously liable for the negligence of a full time medical staff as they were part of the organisation of the hospital.

Answer 19

Vicarious liability Control test- if the employer could tell worker what to do and how to do it, he was an employee. This is the traditional test.

Answer 20

Vic lia A "lent employee" Presumption is that original employer retained control -If the employer seeks to avoid liability he must show that control was transferred to the borrowing employer

Answer 21

Defences Ex turpi Claim struck out on basis of ex turpi causa In the case of Clunis v Camden and Islington Area Health Authority [1998] Clunis, who had been convicted of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility, sued the Health Authority for releasing him from a psychiatric hospital without making a proper assessment of his mental condition. He failed in his action as the Health Authority was able to show that the claim was based on Clunis’ illegal act and that he knew what he was doing when he killed his victim.

Answer 22

Defences THe inextricable test link Hol held that as a matter of public policy, a person should not be compensated for the consequences of his own criminal record C was in ladbroke rail crash and got ptsd. Later stabbed someone to death. He was jailed and unable to earn money. Hol held that his loss of earnings was inextricably linked to his crime and therefore he shouldn't be compensated

Answer 23

Defences Volenti non fit injura (consent) Defendant must show that c knew of the risks to which his conduct exposed him Claimant did not appreciate the risks and so did not consent Stermer v Lawson [1977], the defence of volenti failed as, although the Claimant had borrowed the Defendant’s motorbike voluntarily, he had not been shown how to use it and he was not therefore aware of the precise risk.

Answer 24

Sayers and Harlow 1958- locked in toilet but 1/4 responsible for her own injuries Davies and swan 1949- put himself in a dangerous position- in dangerous place next to a lorry Froom v butcher 1976- failed to wear seatbelt Fitzgerald v lane - walked out in traffic when pedestrian lights red.

Answer 25

Children Gannon v Rotherham mbc 1991 Court usually reluctant to find child contrib neg but did in this case Rescuers - baker v Hopkins Harrison v brb 1981 Courts usually sympathetic to rescuers but found this rescuer (claimant) contrib negligent Dilemma principle- this is where court accepts that c in a difficult situation. However this claimant was 1/4 liable Sayers 1958 Employees - only likely to be contrib neg if he refuses to wear safety clothing

Answer 26

Re date of knowledge for personal injury (s14 LA 1980) The relevant date is not when the c first knew he had a claim but the earlier date when he first knew enough to begin investigating he poss that the D may have been negligent Similar decision as in Mackie

Answer 27

Exception to general limitation period of 6 years for tort If a c is under a disability, claims will never be statute barred under LA 1980 (no limitation periods apply) 6 years after end of dis or death S28(1) LA 1980

Answer 28

Use for proximity of relationship And for secondary victim- she didn't witness the crash but heard about it and visited her family in hospital - hop held that she should be compensated as her nervous shock was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Ds negligence

Answer 29

Hilton v Thomas Burton 1961

2017 cases tort Flashcards

(53 cards)