tort

Question 1

what case over ruled the neighbour principle

Answer 1

donoghue v stevenson was overruled by caparo v dickman

Question 2

what is the neighbour princple

Answer 2

is who you owe a duty of care to through your acts or omissions ( could be anyone )

Question 3

what is the 3 part test of caparo v dickman

Answer 3

1) is the damage reasonbly foreseeable
2) is there a proximate relationship between the d and c
3) is it fair just and reasonable to impose a duty

Question 4

what is meant by “was the harm reasonable foreseeable”

Answer 4

where the reasonable person could see and damage or potential harm occuring
Kent v Griffiths( ambulance did not arrive in time)

Question 5

what is the proximate relationship

Answer 5

(like the neighbour principle) who u owe a duty to based on ur acts or omissions
Bourhill v Young (stillborn baby)

Question 6

what facts happened in Mcloughlin v O’brien

Answer 6

in the case of bourhill v young she wasnt allowed to claim as it would open flood gates. but mcloughlin doesnt open flood gates as it was proxite relationship and within a reasonable time

Question 7

Fair just and reasonable to impose a duty

Answer 7

Hill v chief constable of west yorkshire (jack the ripper)

Question 8

what happens after the claimant proves that a duty of care is owed

Answer 8

they need to prove that there has been a breach in the duty

Question 9

A professional has only breached the duty of care when?

Answer 9

1)does the d conduct fall below the standard ordinary person of that profession?
2)is there a body of opinions that would
support what the d did

Question 10

Learners can breach the duty of care

Answer 10

nettleship v weston

Question 11

children

Answer 11

have to consider there age

mullin v richards

Question 12

there are risk factors

Answer 12

if the standard of care should be raised or lowered

Question 13

special characteristics

Answer 13

paris v stepney borough council

blind in both eyes

Question 14

size of risk

Answer 14

if the risk size is small =no breach of duty

bolton v stone

Question 15

appropriate precautions

Answer 15

will look at the caution and see if you could eliminate or reduce that caution
latimer (flooding )

Question 16

unknown risk

Answer 16

if the risk is unknown there is no breach

roe v minister of health (anaesthetic caused paralysis)

Question 17

public benefit

Answer 17

duty of care has not been breached in emergency

watt v hertfordshire

Question 18

how to prove causation

Answer 18

if factual causation cant be prove then u dont even need to consider legal
Barnett

Question 19

intervening events

Answer 19

was the injury or damage reasonably forseeable consequence of the orginal neglient act or omission

Question 20

the test of legal causation

Answer 20

the injury or damagw must be reasonable foreseeable

Question 21

the type of injure for causation

Answer 21

it needs to be foreseeable eg in the case of hughes v lord advocate (boy explored hole and parffin lamp burned him)

Question 22

eggshell skull

Answer 22

take ur victim as you find them

smith v leech brain(cancer came back)

Question 23

what is res ipsa loquitur

Answer 23

it is when the c cant prove the injury as they may have been unconscious so there are ways they can prove it

Question 24

what must the c show to prove res ipsa loquitur

Answer 24

d was in controll of situation
accident would have not happened if there was no negligence
no other explanation for injury

Question 25

res ipsa loquitur case

Answer 25

scott v london + katherine docks

Question 26

defences ( contributary negligence)

Answer 26

where the c is partly to blame for the injury or damage

Question 27

the case for contributory negligence is

Answer 27

sayers v harlow urban district
and
froom v butcher

Question 28

how to prove consent

Answer 28

1) knowlege of precise risk involved
2) have a free choice
3) acceptance of risk

Question 29

pencuniary loss

Answer 29

a money loss

Question 30

non -pecuniary loss

Answer 30

pain or suffering

or change of lifestyle

Question 31

what is psychiatric injury

Answer 31

a result of negligence.

a sevre long term mental injury that is more than shock or gried (heize v berry)

Question 32

a primary victim

Answer 32

must be in the zone of danger

involved in the injury

Question 33

secondary victim

Answer 33

involved in immediate aftermath

Question 34

primary victim case + what it establishes

Answer 34

Page v Smith

only physical injury needs to be reasonably foreseeable

Question 35

Why are secondary victim harder to claim for

Answer 35

As it could open floodgates and it is controlled by Alcocks criteria

Question 36

3 steps to prove a secondary victim

Answer 36

1) close ties of love and affection
2) c suffers mental shock at the scene(Mcloughlin v O’brien)
3) shock through unaided senses

Question 37

What 3 steps does a rescuer need to do

Answer 37

1)be involved
2)fear their safety
chadwick v brittish rail

Question 38

by standers

Answer 38

not in zone of danger , dont help

mcfarlane v ee caledonia

Question 39

near missers

Answer 39

nearly involved in danger ( could be a primary victim)

Question 40

what is consequential damage

Answer 40

damage directly from the accident or neglience

Question 41

what is pure economic loss

Answer 41

damage that is not a result of physical injury or damage to property

Question 42

neglient mistakement

Answer 42

the only time c can claim for pure economic loss , when suffering a financial loss as a result on acting on a neglient mistakement

Question 43

neglient mistakement

Answer 43

overided duty of care

Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners

Question 44

How to prove special relationship

Answer 44

1)possesion of skill or expertise
2)c must rely on the d words
3)advices is communicated directly
4)d knows they are giving advice for a reason
5)no disclaimer to act as a defence