Tort Law - Knowledge Q Flashcards
(30 cards)
What is tort?
A civil wrong , where a claimant can sue for damages (usually compensation) without a contract
Tortfeasor
Person committing tort (causing harm)
Tortious
Adjective describing liability in tort (it is tortious)
Established a reasonable person definition
Hall v Brookelands Auto racing club
3 elements to bring claim for tort of negligence
1) defendant owed claimant a duty of care
2) defendant breached that duty of care
3) claimant suffered loss/damage as a result of breach
Established Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle
Donoghue v Stevenson - individuals must take reasonable care to avoid acts they can reasonably foresee to injure their neighbour (closely/directly affected person)
Snail case (her friend bought beer so she had no contract with cafe -privity of contract principle)
Established 3 stage test for establishing duty of care - what is 3 stage test as well
Caparo Industries v Dickman (loss on investment case)
1) was the harm/loss suffered reasonably foreseeable?
2) was there a sufficient relationship of proximity between claimant + defendant for duty to be imposed?
3) in all circumstances is it fair, just + reasonable that the law should impose a duty on defendant?
Established reasonable foreseeability (1 of 3 stage test)
Margereson v JW Roberts
Whether reasonable person would be foreseen risk of damage
Asbestos case
Established proximity (2 of stage 3 test)
West Brom FC v El safty
Proximity = closeness of relationship between defendant + activity causing harm to claimant
Football club doctor proximity case
Established if it’s fair, just + reasonable to impose duty on defendant (3 of 3 stage test)
Robinson v Chief West York Police
Usually covered by other 2, only used in court when there’s public policy reasons for denying claim
Police chasing drug dealer n old woman was knocked over in process (police’s fault as had duty of care)
Established that the law of negligence has no allowances for defendants particular level of experience, resources, competence
Nettleship v Weston
Learner driver case- even tho she was learner she still breached duty of care ( duty of care is same as for a qualified driver)
Established principle that a Child is judged by standards of a reasonable child instead of an adult
Orchard v Lee
School boy accidentally knocked over dinner lady
Established standard of care for each individual profession is set by relevant profession
Phillips v Whiteley
Ear piercer not medical pro
Cost benefit analysis
Test used to determine if defendants fallen short if their duty of care standards
‘If preventing the foreseeable risk would’ve been less costly than letting it happen’ = defendant should’ve prevented it
Defendant has fallen short of standard of care if:
-probability of harm was likely
-potential seriousness of damage was high
-could’ve easily taken precautions (low cost)
Claimant must prove on balance of probabilities that defendant breached duty
Section 11 of Civil Evidence Act 1968
Burden of proof reversed from claimant to defendant cos there’s no direct evidence but accident itself implies it
Res ipsa loquitur - Ward v Tesco ‘The thing speaks for itself’
Yoghurt spilled in Tesco case
3 aspects of causation
-factual causation (was breach a matter of fact)
-legal causation (was breach a matter of law)
-remoteness of damage (was damage foreseeable)
Used to establish factual causation (if it weren’t for this incident would claimant still have suffered loss- if no then causation established)
But for test - Chester v Afshar
What happens after factual causation is established?
Court will consider whether defendant was legal cause of claimants harm
Consider this thru whether chains of causation were broken by ‘novus actus interveniens’ translates to an ‘intervening act’ (something happening in between negligent act and harm that could be acc cause of harm)
Established remoteness of damage principle
Wagon Mound case
Oil spillage in water causes fire but wasn’t foreseeable (too remote)
Established the thin skull principle.
Smith v Leech Brain
Exception to wagon mound case
Employers are liable for full consequences of negligence + therefore all claimants injuries
Molten lip burn lead to cancer then to death
What are the 3 defences in tort negligence?
1) contributory negligence
2) consent (volenti non injuria)
3)illegality (ex turpi causa)
What is contributory negligence?
- a partial defence
- regulated by Law Reform Act 1945
-defendant must establish that claimant didn’t take reasonable care + contributed to his own loss
-if successful compensation is REDUCED
