Tort Flashcards
(18 cards)
Failing to act when a person is in danger does not give rise to liability - what are the exceptions
A special relationship (parent/child)
3rd parties
Voluntarily assumes responsibility
A D will not owe a duty for 3rd parties but what are the exceptions;-
- Special Relationship
- Control over 3rd party
- D created a danger
- D failed to stop 3rd party from continuing a danger
What does voluntary assumption mean and when does a duty arise if they do
A party assumes responsibility for another - if they do they owe a duty not to make the situation any worse
What duty does a police officer owe
Operational errors only & a 999 call where immediate threat to life
They do not have a duty to carry out their investigation with reasonable care
What duty does an ambulance driver owe
When a 999 call is accepted
What duty does a fire service owe
Not to make the situation worse
What is the two stage test for establishing a breach
- How a person should have behaved in the Ds position - matter of law
- How the D actually behaved? Matter of fact
What are the 3 criteria in Caparo
- Was there a Reasonable foreseeability of harm to C
- Was there sufficient proximity
- Fair Just and Reasonable to impose a DOC
What are some established DOCs
Road Users
Employee and employer
Manufacturer and consumer
Doctor and patient
Solicitor and client
Three steps to establishing a DOC in negligence
- Is there an established DOC
- Is there any case law which can cover the relationship between C&D
- Novel cases need 3 steps in Caparo
What does Negligence require
DOC
BOD
CAUSATION
REMOTENESS
LOSS/Damages
What 3 things are required for RES IPSA LOQUITUR
D must be in control
Would not have occurred without some negligence/proper care
Cause of accident unknown
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman
Caparo Industries plc is a British industrial company with a global presence. Founded in 1968 by Lord Swraj Paul, its primary focus is on the steel industry, encompassing the design, manufacturing, and marketing of steel and niche engineering products.
The company operates internationally from over 40 sites worldwide, serving customers across various sectors. Its business interests include:
* UK: Property & Leisure
* North America: Tubing, Trailers, Property
* India: Automotive Components, Precision Engineering
* United Arab Emirates: Distribution
Historically, Caparo Industries plc was involved in takeovers and had significant fixed assets and investments.
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2:
While the company itself is involved in manufacturing and engineering, the name “Caparo” is most famously associated with a landmark case in English tort law: Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
Background of the Case:
Caparo Industries plc relied on audited accounts of Fidelity plc when making a takeover bid for the company. The accounts, prepared by Dickman (the auditors), showed a pre-tax profit. However, after the takeover, Caparo discovered that Fidelity had actually made a significant loss. Caparo sued Dickman for negligence, claiming that the auditors owed them a duty of care in preparing the accounts.
The House of Lords’ Decision and the “Caparo Test”:
The House of Lords ultimately rejected Caparo’s claim, establishing a three-part test for determining whether a duty of care exists in negligence cases, particularly in novel situations. This test, often referred to as the “Caparo Test”, requires the claimant to demonstrate:
* Reasonable Foreseeability of Harm: The damage suffered by the claimant must have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
* Example: A driver speeding through a residential area can reasonably foresee that they might cause an accident and injure someone.
* Proximity of Relationship: There must be a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and the defendant. This goes beyond mere foreseeability and considers the nature of the interaction or connection between the parties.
* Example: A doctor has a proximate relationship with their patient. A manufacturer has a proximate relationship with the end consumer of their product.
* Fair, Just, and Reasonable to Impose a Duty: It must be fair, just, and reasonable for the law to impose a duty of care on the defendant in the specific circumstances. This element allows the courts to consider public policy implications and prevent the imposition of liability in inappropriate cases.
* Example: While harm might be foreseeable and there might be a degree of connection, a court might not find it fair and reasonable to impose a duty on a public authority to prevent all crime.
Significance of the Caparo Test:
The Caparo test became a cornerstone of the law of negligence in the UK and is used by courts to determine the existence and scope of a duty of care in various situations. It moved away from a broader, more expansive approach to duty of care and emphasized a more cautious and incremental development of the law.
Recent Developments:
More recent case law, such as Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4, has clarified that the Caparo test is most relevant for genuinely novel situations. In cases falling within established categories of duty or closely analogous to them, the existence of a duty is usually determined by reference to precedent.
Strict liability is imposed for what under the Employer Liability Act 1969
Defective Equipment
What are the 3 things needed for vicarious liability
Individual an Employee not an IC
Tort committed
Within the course of their employment
What are the 3 tests to determine if an employee is an employee or an IC in vicarious liability
- Control test
- Integration test
- Economic reality test
Vicarious liability
A relationship akin to employment is liable
The tortious act must be sufficiently closely connected to employment
