TORT LAW Flashcards

(19 cards)

1
Q

TORT?

A

wrongful action/violation of a persons personal, property or dignity rights resulting in a civil action..

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

INTENTIONAL TORTS

A

D intended to commit a wrongful act which caused injury

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

NEGLIGENT TORT

A

violation of duty of care and causes injury

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

STRICT LIABILITY TORT

A

intention is irrelevant, D liable because matter is vital

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

PROTECTED INTERESTS IN TORT LAW

A
  • safety of person
  • economic interests
  • use/enjoyment of property
  • protection of reputation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

GENERAL RULE

A

TL holds agent liable for cost of an accident if they were careless in causing it

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

THEORIES OF TL - DETERRENCE

A

imposition of liability, deters others from repeating same conduct

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

THEORIES OF TL - CORRECTIVE JUSTICE

A

“fault basis” reparation of harm caused

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

THEORIES OF TL - DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE

A

considers entire circumstances in imposing liability

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

THEORIES OF TORT LAW

A

basic principles that guide the allocation of accidental losses

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

NEGLIGENCE

A

injury/loss is caused due to the TF’s failure to upkeep legal duty of taking reasonable care

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

NOVEL SITUATIONS: DONOGHUE V STEVENSON

A

“neighbourhood principle” established. Must take reasonable care not to harm others

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

MODERN TEST: CAPARO V DICKMAN

A

1) reasonable foresight of harm to C
2) Sufficient proximity of relationship between C + D
3) That is fair, just, reasonable to impose duty

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

STEEL V NRAM

A

caper v Hickman can’t always be used. If Case facts established in case law, precedent applies. Novel situations = use reason by analogy.

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

FORESEEABILITY

A

is it reasonable foreseeable that this action is going to cause harm?
1st element of duty of care

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

PAGE V SMITH

A

personal injury was foreseeable, it doesn’t matter whether the injury was physical or psychiatric. Case establishes egg-shell skull rule.

17
Q

CHILDREN: TAYLOR V GLASGOW

A

Glasgow corporation was liable, children were entitled to go onto land. It was foreseeable that the berries would have been enticing to children.

18
Q

FORESEEABILITY IDENTITY PROBLEMS:HALEY V LONDON ELECTRICITY BOARD

A

it was foreseeable that a blind person might walk down the street, and they should be given appropriate protection

19
Q

BASIC COMMON SENSE: TOMLINSON V CONGLETON

A

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