TORT LAW Flashcards
(19 cards)
TORT?
wrongful action/violation of a persons personal, property or dignity rights resulting in a civil action..
INTENTIONAL TORTS
D intended to commit a wrongful act which caused injury
NEGLIGENT TORT
violation of duty of care and causes injury
STRICT LIABILITY TORT
intention is irrelevant, D liable because matter is vital
PROTECTED INTERESTS IN TORT LAW
- safety of person
- economic interests
- use/enjoyment of property
- protection of reputation
GENERAL RULE
TL holds agent liable for cost of an accident if they were careless in causing it
THEORIES OF TL - DETERRENCE
imposition of liability, deters others from repeating same conduct
THEORIES OF TL - CORRECTIVE JUSTICE
“fault basis” reparation of harm caused
THEORIES OF TL - DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
considers entire circumstances in imposing liability
THEORIES OF TORT LAW
basic principles that guide the allocation of accidental losses
NEGLIGENCE
injury/loss is caused due to the TF’s failure to upkeep legal duty of taking reasonable care
NOVEL SITUATIONS: DONOGHUE V STEVENSON
“neighbourhood principle” established. Must take reasonable care not to harm others
MODERN TEST: CAPARO V DICKMAN
1) reasonable foresight of harm to C
2) Sufficient proximity of relationship between C + D
3) That is fair, just, reasonable to impose duty
STEEL V NRAM
caper v Hickman can’t always be used. If Case facts established in case law, precedent applies. Novel situations = use reason by analogy.
FORESEEABILITY
is it reasonable foreseeable that this action is going to cause harm?
1st element of duty of care
PAGE V SMITH
personal injury was foreseeable, it doesn’t matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. Case establishes egg-shell skull rule.
CHILDREN: TAYLOR V GLASGOW
Glasgow corporation was liable, children were entitled to go onto land. It was foreseeable that the berries would have been enticing to children.
FORESEEABILITY IDENTITY PROBLEMS:HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD
it was foreseeable that a blind person might walk down the street, and they should be given appropriate protection
BASIC COMMON SENSE: TOMLINSON V CONGLETON
risk arose out of the action of C, not state of premises. C was a person of full capacity who was aware of the obvious risk of swimming in the lake
