Delict (wk 11)

Question 1

Delict (3 categories)

Answer 1

delict is involuntary obligations imposed by the law.

DAMNUM (loss/injury): damage to property, personal injury, financial loss

INJURIA (wrongful conduct): intentional, fraud, assault, carelessnes (driving)

DATUM (causation): link between loss suffered by pursuer and defender

Question 2

Claims in negligence

Answer 2

for pursuer to succeed in negligence:
1. defender owed pursuer duty of care
2. defender breached his duty of care 3. due to this caused pursuer’s loss
4. loss must not be too remote a consequence of defenders breach
5. no relevent defences apply

Question 3

Relationship and duty

Answer 3

defender expected to reasonably foresee that pursuer may be harmed by wrongful acts

relationship depends on nature of harm: physical, economic, psychiatric damage.

Question 4

Type of victim

Answer 4

• primary: suffers loss as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of defenders wrongdoing
• secondary: suffers loss as a INDIRECT CONSEQUENCE of defenders wrongdoing

Question 5

The Neighbourhood
Test + Case

Answer 5

the test is to determine existence of duty of care (in physical damage)

case of DONOGHUE V STEVESON (1932)
a women who became ill after consuming ginger beer with a decomposed snail in it. here the manufactures owed a duty of careeven without a direct contractual relationship

Question 6

Remoteness of Relationship + Case

Answer 6

if pursuer not a neighbour, relationship is too remote. Meaning only liable for damages that are foreseeable

Bourhill v Mr. Young (1942)
Mr young was carelessly riding his motorbike and collided with a car, suffering injuries. During this, Mrs Bourhill was leaving the tram about 50 feet away, she heard the crash and withnessed the aftermath of the crash. She was 8 months pregnant and gave birth to a STILLBORN. She bought action against Mr. Young for PSYCHIATRIC DAMAGES. However, he was not liable as it was not reasonably foreseeable / relationship too remote.

Question 7

Duty of Care + Case

Answer 7

Caparo Test: to determine whether a duty of care exists in negligence.
- foreseeability: could the actions have harmed others
- proximity: remoteness of relationship
- fairness: justify imposing duty of care

DARNLEY V CROYDON HEALTH SERVICES NHS TRUST (2018)
Darnley got a head injury as a result of assault, facing hours of wait in thehospital before he could be seen by medical staff. After 90 mins, he left and worsened, was brought back. A scan revealed he was suffering from a disease and went into surgery, but got permanent brain damage. If he had got treated beforehand, he couldve recovered nearly fully. UK Supreme Court established duty of care was owed was by the counter staff for misleading info.

Question 8

Economic Loss

Answer 8

DERIVATIVE: someone losses money because of physical damage that was caused to someone else due to another’s wrongdoing.
[A’s wrongful act –> physical damage to B –> B losses money]

PURE: PRIMARY: direct consequence of negligence.
[a’s wrongful act –> B losses money]
SECONDARY: financial loss from physical damage suffered by 3rd party.
[A’s wrongful act –> damage to C –> B losses money]

Question 9

Pure Primary Economic Loss Case

Answer 9

Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners (1964)
Hedley was approached by a bank to provide ad service. Heller provided a referenfce for bank’s financial stability. References were given negligently, making
hedley suffer loss when the bank went bankrupt.