Tort law Flashcards
(40 cards)
Which causation is used for tort law ?
Factual causation which is the but for test
what is the caparo test?
all three parts need to be satisfied to show a duty of care
was the damage or harm foreseeable ( predictable)
is there a sufficiently close relationship between the claimant and defendant
it is fair to impose a duty of care
kent v griffiths
ambulance didn’t come in a reasonable time and there wasn’t a obvious reason for this
claimant suffered further illness as they didn’t arrive on times this was foreseeable
legal principle no public health service can operate withoutr effectiv3 ambulance provision
Bourhill v young 1943
pregnant women heard sound accident but there wasn’t a relationship between the two close for there to be a duty of care this it too reduce the floodgates of other claims
Mcloughlin v Obrien 1982
claimant husband and children were is a serious road accident she saw them before they were treated tit was rule there was a close enough relationship therefore the defendant owed a duty of care
she suffered sever shock , organic depression , personailty
Hill v chief constable of west Yorkshire 1990
Yorkshire ripper had been attacking and murdering women the claimant daughter was his last victim before he was caught by the time of her death they had enough information to arrest but failed to do so. the mother claimed they owed a duty care to her daughter .
it was decided the relationship between the police and the daughter was not close enough or reasonable for them tp owe a duty of care to the general public.
whats pure economic loss
loss of profit for a business that is not operating during an injury
what is the exception to pure economic loss ?
result acting on a negligent misstatement if there is a special relationship with their defendant that gave the advice as seen in Hedley v Byrne
Chaudhry v prabhakar 1988
Claimant asked her friend who wasn’t a mechanic but had experience of cars to find her a good second .hand car that had not been in an accident he recommended a car that was being sold by a dealer. He assured it was in good condition and had not been in an accident and relying on this assurance she bought it.
It was then discovered it had been in an accident and was completely unroadworthy.
The claimant recovered the cost of the vehicle from the dealer under contract law but also successfully sued her friend for his negligent misstatement.
Legal principle special relationship can exist in social relationships
What does a special relationship require ?
The possession of a special skill or expertise on the part of the person giving the advice
A reliance on the advice by the claimant the advice is acted upon there has to be sufficient proximity between two parties
Advice communicated directly to through a third party eg newspaper
Person giving advice know it’s being used by claimant
No disclaimer to act as a defence
What is psychiatric injury ?
Also known as nervous shock. A severe long term mental injury which is more than shock or grief
What is a primary victim?
Some one who is directly injured in the event, the injury can be physical and or mental.
What is a secondary victim ?
Someone who is harmed when they witness an event the injury is likely to be mental
What does public policy do
Control the amount of claims
Claims are decided by the judges - judicial precedent
Most claims will be for pure economic loss due to inability to work
Judges have developed a public policy reasons to restrict the amount of claims especially for secondary victims
Primary victims have to prove negligence on behalf of the defendant
What do secondary victims have to prove ?
There was an accident or suddden event where some one the defendant was negligent which caused the injury
Some form of mental injury claimant passes Alcock criteria
That a person of reasonable fortitude would have suffered injury in the same circumstances
Dulieu v white 1901
Claimant was working in a bar when as a result of an accident in the street outside, a coach and horses crashed into the bar. She’s suffered fear of her own safety. Her claim was allowed as it was foreseeable that in the event of an accident someone could sufffer real and immeadiate fear of personal danger
Legal principle a claim can be made if the victim fears for their own safety
Hambrook v Stokes 1925
A mother was walking with her children along a pavement when a runaway lorry passed her. She heard a crash ahead of her and also that lorry was in an accident involving children she suffered severe shock as she feared for the safety of her own children her claim was allowed as a result a claim could be made by those suffering shock due to fearing safety of a family member
Legal principle extended the principe, of dulieu v white to fear for a family member
What is the Alcock criteria ?
The claimant must have close ties in love and affection to the victim
The claimant
suffered mental injuries at the
scene of the accident or into immediate aftermath as seen in mcloughlin the claimant suffered shock through his or her own unaided senses they saw or heard the accident or aftermath ie when in mcloughlin she saw her kids untreated
Page v smith
The claimant had suffered from Me which is a nervous disorder before the accident. He was in recovery when he was involved in a minor care accident due to the defendants negligence . He was not physically injured but the accident triggger his me which became chronic and permenant. As a result he was unable to return to his job as a teacher . The House of Lords decided that proved some kind of personal injury was foreseeable it did not matter whether the injury was. Physical or mental and so the distinction was made between primary and secondary victims.
Alcock v cheif constable of south yorkshire 1992
due to negligence of the police, too many football supporters were allowed into an area of the hillsborough ground leading to many suffering crash injuries ninety six fans died and hundreds were injured. the police eventually admitted negligence and settled claims by those present. the case involved a representative group of families who suffered mental injuries as a result of learning that family members had been involved in a tragedy.
rescuers
this covers anyone who helps a victim of an accident.
Chadwick v British rail 1967
the claimant helped victims of the Lewisham train crash which occurred close to his home. because of his small size, he was encouraged to crawl into a wreckage to give injections and comfort trapped passengers. as a result of his experience he suffered mental injuries. His claim against the negligent railway authority was successful as the court considered he was a primary victim at risk to himself and it did not want to discourage members of the public from rescuing if required.
legal principle rescuer claim are allowed if they are a primary victim
Hale v London underground 1992
a fireman who suffered post-traumatic stress following th kings cross station fire successfully claimed as he was classed as a primary victim
however, if rescuers do not put themselves at physical risk they will be classed as secondary victims and will have to satisfy the alcock criteria
white v Chief constable of south Yorkshire
police officers who tool part in the rescue operation at hillsborough claimed post traumatic stress disorder as a result of their experiences. their claims were denied as they did not put themselves at risk. a further reason was that the judge considered that public policy prevented them from recovering compensation when the relatives of the victims could not recover.
legal principle if a rescuer is not a physical risk they are a secondary victim and will need to satisfy the alcock criteria
