Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Tort Law > Exam Revision > Flashcards

Exam Revision Flashcards

(54 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Benjamin Cardozo

A

I sought certainty. I was oppressed and disheartened when I found that the quest for it was futile

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

Torts are…

A

Civil wrongs for which the law will provide a remedy. They will be enforceable against one party, to the benefit of another

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

Peter Cane

A

Tort law is purely protective, does not lay down rules

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

Negligence elements

A

Doc
Breach
Causation
Damage
Remoteness
Defences

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

Urbanaski v Patel

A

Surgeon removed patients only kidney causing death, surgeon liable to the patients father who donated his own kidney to save her life

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

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control

A

BBBC had a duty to be proactive - Lord Phillips

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

Caparo test

A

Lord Bridge’s 3 requirements
1. Reasonably foreseeable harm
2. Proximity
3. Fair, just and reasonable

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

Lord Reed’s approach in Robinson

A

Courts will follow precedents in established categories, only relying on the caparo test in novel cases

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

Relevant considerations: cost of taking care

A

Latimer

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

Relevant considerations: gravity of harm

A

Paris v Stephney

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

Relevant considerations: probability of harm

A

Read v Lyons

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

Factual causation

A

But for test - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington

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

Legal causation

A

Real, direct or effective cause - Stapley v Gypsum Mines

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

The principle of de minimus non curat lex

A

The law does not take account of inconsequential or trifling harms

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

Remoteness

A

A line between recoverable and irrecoverable loss

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

Oversees tankship

A

Damage must be a reasonably foreseeable type

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

Lord Atkins in Donoghue

A

Neighbour Principle “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

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

John Fleming on Lord Atkins neighbour principle

A

‘A sacrosanct preamble to any judicial disquisition on duty’
- contains noticable ambiguity

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

Lord Oliver in Caparo on proximity

A

-‘Proximity is no more than a label’
-Proximity is not a ‘definable concept’
-Proximity is used pragmatically by judges

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

Incremental development

A

“That the law should develop novel categories incrementally and by analogy with established categories - Brennan J, Sutherland shire council v Heyman

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

Guido Calabresi

A

‘Accident costs are less burdensome when spread across the community’

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

Dangers of pro-claimant approach to proof of causation

Study These Flashcards
A

Insurance premiums will rise if it’s easier for claimants to bring a case, causes a social issue in an effort to help claimants

23
Q

Lord Toulson in Michael’s case

Study These Flashcards
A

“The common law does not generally impose liability for pure omissions”

24
Q

A person who didn’t create the danger will not be liable for omitting to help unless…

Study These Flashcards
A

-assumed responsibility
-special level of control over the source of danger
-A’s status creates an obligation to protect V from that danger - Robinson

25
Lord Keith in Hill
Police are liable "like anyone else" in tort for their acts and omissions
26
Unreasonable interference
'Any activity causing or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with C's land or C's use and enjoyment of that land'
27
Lord Westbury's distinction in private nuisance
If effects comfort = balancing act If substantial interference = more straightforward and likely to award damages
28
Bamford v Turnley
Private nuisance is "a rule of give and take, live and let live"
29
Theisiger in Sturges
"What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermensey"
30
Malice = intentional annoyance
Christie v Davey - noisy on purpose "only for the purpose of annoyance" Hollywood silver fox farm - fired a gun intentionally to scare the foxes
31
Ryland and Fletcher elements
-accumulation -non natural use -escape -damage -remoteness -defences
32
Benning v Wong
"The whole point of Rylands is that the exercise of care is irrelevant"
33
Accumulation in Rylands
The accumulation must be voluntary
34
Bingham in Transco
Non natural use of the land has to be extraordinary and unusual
35
Defences to Rylands
Act of god 'Nichols' Unforeseeable act of a third party - Rickards v Lothian Consent - Cory Brothers Necessity - Rigby Statutory authority
36
Lord Hoffman in Transco
Rylands rule will not protect from fire damage, "make sure you have insurance"
37
Defences to private nuisance
Prescription - Sturges v Bridgman Statutory authority - Allen v Gulf oil Partial defence of contributory negligence - Trevett v Lee
38
Lord Scarman - a judicial disagreement in McLoughlin v Obrien
Scarman - judges should always base their decision on principle
39
Lord Edmund Davies: a judicial disagreement in McLoughlin v Obrien
Davies - found Scarman's view novek and startling. Emphasised that judges regularly ground their decisions in policy
40
Negligence elements
1. The defendant owed the claimant a doc 2. The duty has been breached: D was negligent 3. The defendant's breach of duty has caused the claimant to suffer loss or damage of a relevant sort 4. That damage is caused in law by the defendant's negligence/is not too remote/is within scooe of the duty
41
Lord Reed in Dorset Yacht
The neighbour principle ought to apply unless there is some justification or valid explanation for it's exclusion
42
Australian 'salient features' approach
Australian HC abandoned caparo test, adopted salient features approach. It addresses matters of principle before it turns to policy considerations. -Sullivan v Moody
43
Kirby J's critique of the 'salient features approach to DOC
- lacks clarity
44
Purpose of the compensation act 2006, s1
To address the percieved problem of blame culture by considering whether imposing a duty will stop people from doing a desirable thing
45
Bolam v Friern Hospital
"A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he acts in accordance with accepted medical practice"
46
Novus Actus Interveniens
A break in the causal chain Lord Wright, a NAI is something unwarrantable
47
Hart and Honore on NAI
Described the doctrine as 'cloudy' Criticised the heavy use of metaphor e.g. 'causal chain' when judges and lawyers discuss the doctrine
48
Liability for the conduct of third parties
Dorset Yacht - it must be 'very likely to happen' Lamb ' a degree of likelihood amounting to almost inevitable
49
McGhee
C must show that D breached the duty owed and materially increased the risk to which C was exposed
50
Barker v Corus (placing a restriction on fairchild)
The extent of liability is confined to the extent to which D materially increased the risk to which C was exposed
51
The compensation act 2006, s3(1)
The mesothelioma amendment The responsible person is liable for all relevant harm even if C was exposed to asbestos by others. Means c does not have to sue each careless employer
52
Sienkiewicz, what constitutes a material increase in risk?
"Material" excludes insignificant risk
53
American approach to asbestos exposure
Market share liability - Sindell v Abott Each manufacturer held liable for the proportion of C's injury that they owned shares of in the free market
54
Snell v Farrell (canadian)
The US medical crisis of the 70s; inflated insurance premiums due to lots of claims

Tort Law (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions