Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Delict > Duty of Care > Flashcards

Duty of Care Flashcards

1
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson

A

Atkin dictum: love your neighbour. In law your neighbour is somebody who you ought reasonably to have contemplated as being affected.

Concept of forseeability and proximity to establish a duty of care.

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

Caparo v Dickman

A

Step 1: look at precedent
Step 2: is there sufficient forseeability and proximity
Step 3: fair, just, reasonable that the law should impose duty upon one party for others benefit

  • No general duty to prevent pure economic loss
  • commercial context - fair, just, reasonable to expect pursuers to engage own professional advisors
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bourhill v Young

A
  • pregnant fishwife
  • forseeability dependent on circumstances
  • here, not forseeable that someone in Mrs B’s situation would have been affected
  • outwith range of proximity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Hines

A
  • fire-alarm in office building
  • duty placed on managing agents of building
  • sufficient proximity between tenants and agents
  • forseeable that actions had bearing on property interests
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council

A
  • murder of next door neighbour
  • not fair, just, reasonable to impose duty of council
  • they have landlord duties for large popn. of tenants
  • only in some circumstances can 3rd party harm be actionable
  • no breach of art 2 - council do not have resources to prevent such crime
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

“Nicholas H”

A
  • not fair, just, reasonable to pin liability on classification society of ship
  • already complex insurance structure in place
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Maloco v Littlewoods

A
  • fire damaged neighbouring proprietors
  • whilst third party prevention is recognised, it was not found here
  • littlewoods not liable for third party actions
  • impossible to know who the third party was
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Thomson v Scottish Ministers

A
  • pursuers daughter murdered by prisoner on short term release
  • prison service obliged to give short release
  • nothing distinct or special about this case to displace general rule on 3rd parties
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

A
  • home office had special duty of supervision
  • damage was forseeable
  • duty imposed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis

A
  • duty of close supervision of 4yr old breached (caused collision running onto road)
  • duty of care established
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Kazier v Scottish Ministers

A
  • prisoner assault

- prison had duty to supervise prisoners in gym

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

Barret v MoD

A
  • affixiated own vomit

- once officers had taken man into their care they had assumed responsibility to assume charge

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

“Opogo”

A
  • duty to rescue?
  • no obligation or absolute duty to rescue
  • owner not liable as he had attempted to rescue
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Spartan Steel v Martin

A
  • negligent cutting of electricity

- pure economic loss of profits of steel not yet in process was non recoverable

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

Dynamco

A
  • cannot recover for profits unless loss arose from direct damage
  • electricty service covers too many people here
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Leigh v Sillavan

A
  • no negligence here

- party must own property at time of damage occuring

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

Reavis v Clan Line Steamers

A
  • sea collision, 8 orchestra members died
  • no duty of care owed in resect of death to others (cannot own an orchestra i.e. people)
  • non recoverable pure economic less
18
Q

Murphy v Brentwood DC

A
  • LA approved building plans including defective foundations
  • Held: no pure economic loss
  • not fair, just, reasonable to impose duty so as to cast them as guarantor to house owners for quality of builders work
  • can only recover what flows from breach of relevant contractual duties
19
Q

Hedley Byrne v Heller

A
  • banked escape liability due to disclaimer removing responsibility
  • landmark case recognises negligently provided advice can trigger liability: misrepresentation
  1. advice for purpose
  2. advice will be communicated
  3. likely to be acted upon for purpose
  4. acted upon to advisee detriment
20
Q

Smith v Bush

A
  • indirect misrepresentation
  • disclaimer to seek private advice was deemed unreasonable
  • surveyor providing info for professional purposes assumes responsibility for mortgagee and purchaser
21
Q

Spring v Guardian Assurance

A
  • reference from previous job negligently misleading
  • damage of misleading reference is forseeable
  • duty on previous employer established - fair, just, reasonable
  • obvious proximity in relationship
22
Q

Henderson v Merrett Syndicates

A
  • shares
  • time bar for contractual action had run out
  • duty of care owed by managing agents depsite them being indirect investors
23
Q

White v Jones

A
  • proximity and forseeability between legal exec. and father
  • daughters claim was allowed - unjust if J had not been held accountable to those lost
  • failure to reinstate beneficiaries
24
Q

Junior Books v Veitchi (unique cf. Realstone Ltd)

A
  • pursuer engaged contractors to build factor who advised V for flooring
  • held: sufficient proximity between parties to allow JB to sue in delict
  • usually pure economic loss
25
Q

Alcock v Chief Cons

A
  • 16 conjoined cases. Hillsborough Disaster
  • close tie of love and affection
  • present at accident or immediate aftermath
  • psychiatric injury - direct perception of accident or immedaite aftermath
26
Q

Page v Smith

A
  • deemed primary victim
  • not in damaged car but accident retriggered ME
  • irrelevant that precise psych. damage was unforseeable
  • defendant owed duty of care
27
Q

McLoughlin v OBrien

A
  • held that mother was secondary victim
  • sufficient proximity in time and place (2 hour at outer limit of aftermath)
  • reasonably forseeable that illness would be triggered from seeing her family
28
Q

Young v Macvean

A
  • Alcock not satisfied - not present when event occured and psychiatric injury was not direct result
  • claim rejected for personal injury
  • car gym class
29
Q

Robertson v Forth Road Bridge

A
  • Alcock criteria extremely tightly construed
  • does not extend to employees
  • no distressing features of incident
30
Q

White v Chief Cons

A
  • police officers not in range of forseeable physical injury
  • psychiatric injury was from aftermath
  • only seconadry victims - duty not established
31
Q

Anderson v Christian Salvesen

A
  • pursuer lorry driver - involuntary cause of his colleagues death
  • in principle, could give rise to primary victim
32
Q

X v Bedfordshire CC

A

2 essential enquiries

  • is your case justiciable in law of negligence?
  • is a duty of care owed?
  • conjoined cases of LA failure of statutory duty to safeguard children
  • not fair, just, reasonable to extend duty to all those that may be owed duty
  • unfair and disruptive to pin liability on one particular agency
33
Q

Robinson v Chief Cons

A
  • R injured during arrest
  • no duty for omissions or prevention of 3rd party action cf. exceptions
  • SC held that police had duty
  • forseeable that mismanaged arrest may cause injury
34
Q

Hill v Chief Cons

A
  • no duty of care on police

- duty does not extend to protecting persons from other individuals of community

35
Q

Michael v Chief Cons

A
  • general omissions - no liability
  • 999 call logged as grade 2 before being upgraded
  • exec. were there has been a representation/reliance
36
Q

AJ Allan v Strathclyde Fire Board

A
  • fire service duty is to not make situation worse

- pursuers case in negligence irrelevant

37
Q

Kent v Griffiths

A
  • Duty of care owed once call with personal details accepted/assumed responsibility to attend promptly
  • Once in care of emergency services, duty of care to patient arises
38
Q

Stovin v Wise

A
  • car driver, poor visibility, collided with motorbike
  • no duty on road authority for road users
  • statutory duty did not mean duty to other road users
39
Q

Macdonald v Aberdeenshire County Council

A
  • duty did not extend to improving safety - reasonable driver should have seen
  • killed passenger in road collision
40
Q

Rabone

A
  • no art2 engagement in medical malpractice
  • on appeal,
  • breach of article 2 which merited an award well above the lower range of damages
  • Wide discretion extending time limit
  • operational duty on the state to take reasonable steps to protect from a real and immediate risk of suicide
41
Q

Hall v Simmons (ENG)

A
  • immunity from duty?

- English barristers no longer immune, conduct of civil and criminal proceedings

42
Q

Wright v Paton Farrell

A
  • Scottish solicitors and advocates immune, conduct of criminal proceedings

Delict (8 decks)

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