Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Project Management Year 1 > Law > Flashcards

Law Flashcards

(53 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Tort

A

A civil wrong which causes harm to another

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

5 Types of Tort

A 
Negligence
Nuisance
Defamation
Trespass
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Tortfeasor

A

A person who commits the tort

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

Civil Standard of Proof

A

Balance of probabilities

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

Mandatory Injunction

A

Undo or remedy any damages

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

Prohibitory Injunction

A

Discontinue a wrongful act

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

Ratio Decidendi

A

Rule of law which future decisions are based

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

Obiter Dicta

A

A judge’s opinion not essential to the decision therefore not legally binding as a precedent.

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

Precedent

A

Similar cases should be decided in a similar way

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

Stare Decisis

A

The doctrine of binding precedent

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

Per Incurium

A

Careless decision

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

Damages

A

Compensatory Damages
Aggravated Damages
Punitive Damages

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

Interlocutory Injunction

A

Temporary injunction - Prevents defendant from doing something or to remedy any damage prior to a full hearing - Normally for Pollutors

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

Tort of Negligence claimant must show

A

Duty of Care
Breach of Duty
Suffering of Damage

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

Duty of Care

A

Caparo Test
Proximity needs to be established
Foreseeable Damage
Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

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

Breach of Duty

A

Show that behaviour has fallen below expectations

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

Suffering of Damage

A

Consequence has led to damage

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

Donoghue vs Stevenson

A

1932 AC 562 Lord Atkin
Concept of duty of care was established
Introduces concept of proximity (Neighbour principle)

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

Caparo v Dickman

A

1990
Created the 3 part test
Negligence development from Donoghue

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

Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd

A

1976
Res Ipsa Loquitur - Thing speaks for itself
Establish a prima facie case of negligence
Defendant needs to prove they were not negligent

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

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

A

1969
But For defendant actions they wouldnt suffered loss
Hospital not liable, would act have occurred

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

Causation

Study These Flashcards
A

Claimant needs to show had the breach not occurred there would be no damage
Breach-Damage connection (but for)

23
Q 
Bradford v Robinson Rentals
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd
Study These Flashcards
A

[1967] Application / [1961] Based
Remoteness
Frostbite not unforeseeable of extremely cold weather

24
Q

Limitation period for Negligence

25
Volenti non fit injuria and Defence
No injury can be done to a willing person There has been agreement to assume the risk Full knowledge to the nature and extent of the risk A voluntary decision by the claimant to assume the risk
26
Negligence Definition
Failure on the part of the defendant to take care as the law requires to ensure that no harm comes to the plaintiff
27
Professional Negligence | Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Standard of care expected someone carries out a job Judge McNair in 1957 Bolam Test
28
Expert Evidence
Fellow members of the defendants profession
29
No Experience | Nettleship v Weston
1971 | Standard of care of learner driver same as experienced
30
Vicarious Liability
Imposing strict liability of employers on the actions of their employees
31
Storey vs Aston
1869 Caused accident due to negligence Frolic of his own established - no liability
32
Salmond Test
A tort is committed in employment if : Wrongful act authorised by the master Wrongful and unauthorised act authorised by the master.
33
Occupier
A person who has sufficient control of the premises/ land.
34
Occupiers Liability
A specialised branch of negligence, and allows a claimant to sue an occupier of land or premises for damage or personal injury which occurs on the premises.
35
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
Section 4 | Those in charge have to take reasonable care of visitors
36
Commissioner for Railways v McDermott
1967 Occupier to have control over safety There is proximity between occupier, duty of care arises
37
Occupiers Liability Act
1957 Created common duty of care, liability similar to negligent Common law exists, alongside statutory common DOC
38
Premises Defintion
A fixed or movable structure including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
39
Fisher v CHT Ltd
1966 Joint Liability, <1 Occupier, depends who failed their duty Contractor joint w/ club, plasterer electric shock Each defendant owed duty of care
40
To be Occupier Liable
Degree of control over premises Control allows assessment of state and safety Appreciation of failing to take care may result in injury Control need not be exclusive or apply to whole premises
41
Unfair Contract Terms Act
1977 Occupier cannot exclude or limit liability Restriction must satisfy requirement of reasonableness
42
Trespassers
Not visitors under 1957 Oc Li Act 1984 Occupier liable if known danger on land Children careful of features of allurement Actionable without damage
43
Trespass Liability
How serious was the danger How specific was the warning How the warning was given If warning was heeded then he would be reasonably safe
44
3 types of Nuisance and Remedies
Public, Private, Statutory | Injunction, Damages Abatement
45
Public Nuisance
A-G v PYA Quarries 1957 Nuisance that will impact on more than just an individual Individual claimants need to show they've suffered more (Harper v Haden & Son 1933)
46
Private Nuisance
Reed v Lyons & Co Ltd 1945 Interference of another use of enjoyment or right over land or damage Noise (transient?), smell, dust, encroachment
47
Noise Nuisance
Control of Pollution Act 1974 | Halsey v Esso Petrol 1961 - noise measured in decibels
48
Granting Injunction Test
``` American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd 1975 Is there a serious issue Would damages be appropriate Balance of convenience lay Other special factors ```
49
Nuisance Locality
Roskell v Whitmorth 1871 | Character of neighbourhood
50
Statutory Nuisance
Defined by statute in 79-82 EPAct 1990 | Not stopped/abated = criminal offence
51
Rylands vs Fletcher
1868 Things that have been brought onto land and escaped Reservoir water escaping, flooding mining tunnels Contractor failed to block shafts / duty to prevent escape
52
Ruling of Rylands vs Fletcher
Rule imposes strict liability - if escaped then liable | They had a duty to prevent escape
53
Refined Rylands vs Fletcher
Cambridge Water vs Eastern Counties Leather plc 1994 | The damage must be foreseeable

Project Management Year 1 (13 decks)

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