Tort Law - Omissions and Third Parties Flashcards Preview

Law Second Year > Tort Law - Omissions and Third Parties > Flashcards

Flashcards in Tort Law - Omissions and Third Parties Deck (198):
1

How do L&O argue we should see the case of Kent Griffiths?

Better to compare ambulance services to other health services, with a public law duty

2

Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield general

Iron guard, blackout

3

Vacwell v BDH

Manufacturers must supply appropriate instructions and warnings with products

4

Majority in Smith v Littlewoods Corporation

Foreseeability, emphasising lack of knowledge of compromised security, although acknowledged DoC

5

barnes v hants general

school authorities

6

What jurisdiction is Stewart v Pettie from?

SC of Canada

7

How was the FJR impliedly considered in Lowns v Woods?

Applied test of proximity from Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman

8

Naval airman, vomit

Barrett v MoD

9

What are the five exceptions to the general rule for liability for acts of 3rd?

Control imports responsibility, psychiatric patients, liability of landowners to neighbours, landlords and tenants and liability for serving alcohol

10

Barrett v Enfield LBC

No general duty of good parenting

11

Who, in obiter, suggested a way to distinguish Capital and Kent, and in what case?

Lord Bingham in Smith v Sussex

12

Unlocked mini bus, pub closing time

Tapp v London Country Bus

13

Watson v British Board of Boxing Council on reliance

General reliance led to DoC despite Capital as they were a regulatory body assuming responsibility towards participatory fighters to provide medical equipment

14

What is the economic reason for limiting liability for omissions?

Incentivising individuals against certain acts by making them pay - desirable by economic theory that people act efficiently and create the least costs

15

What two cases show liability for omission can arise out of an office/position of responsibility

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and SoS for HD v Robb

16

Tapp v London Country Bus judgment

No special danger arose, relying on Goff in Smith

17

Jebson v MoD general

Lorry dancing

18

Why do L&O argue Kent survives Gorringe?

AR came from the call as well, giving a basis other than statutory power on which to impose the positive duty

19

What did Lord Nicholls add to Hoffman's reasons in stovin v wise?

Imposes compulsory altruism which should require a special justification before being imposed

20

Jordan House v Menow judgment

Canada found a DoC with two influencing factors - (1) regular and (2) Canadian legislation imposed a tortious duty on owners of pub etc. if customer was killed/committed suicide after getting drunk at their premises

21

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis judgment

Police admitted DoC and HoL agreed due to extensive control of police over V

22

Palmer v Tees Health Authority judgment

Lack of proximity - no AR to such a large class of potential victims

23

Designated social worker, violent father

Selwood v Durham CC

24

Watson v British Boxing judgment

AR for adequacy of supplies at an approved bout

25

Rape by foreign citizen

K v SoS for HD

26

R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd judgment

No DoC as no basis on which to find a positive duty to act

27

Cole v South Tweed Heads

HC of Australia denied licensed club owes a DoC to stop patrons drinking to excess

28

White v Jones judgment

Contractual undertaking may generate a duty of affirmative action - AR for task

29

Palmer v Tees Health Authority general

4 year old abduction, nightmares

30

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent general

Sea wall, 178 days

31

SoS for HD v Robb general

Hunger strike

32

Lowns v Woods general

Epilepsy, 300m

33

Winfield and Jolowicz on OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport

Decision is hard as coastguard made children worse off by depriving them of assistance

34

Tapp v London Country Bus general

Unlocked mini bus, pub closing time

35

What judge and in what case made it clear that the question of whether V's identity is known should not determine proximity test outcome

Palmer v Tees Health Authority per Pill LJ

36

what three reasons for limiting liability for omissions did Hoffman given in Stovin v Wise?

Political, moral and economic reasons

37

What did Williams show about the judges in Kent?

They tried to align law with moral sentiment - 'offensive to concepts of common humanity' (Turner J) not to give a remedy

38

What case stated a Medical professional is not liable as long as he 'acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled' in the given area

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

39

What two judges in Mitchell v Glasgow Focused on Council's actions as being entirely lawful, and thus not negligently creating any risk under 3rd by Goff in Smith

Rodger and Hale

40

Name at least one caseshowing how liability for omission can arise out of supply of non-obviously dangerous products

Vacwell v BDH; Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender

41

Home Office v Dorset Yacht general

Borstal

42

Name at least two cases showing reliance creating liability for omission as D undertook responsibility for C's wellbeing

Watson v British Board of Boxing Council; Barrett v Ministry of Defence; Jebson v MoD; Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

43

no general DoC simply due to a 'blood relationship'

Hahn v Conley

44

Winfield and Jolowicz on Kent and Capita

Fire service usually concerned with property damage, so liability would benefit subrogated fire insurers with a premium to cover the risk

45

Manufacturers must supply appropriate instructions and warnings with products

Vacwell v BDH

46

Who said there is 'no rational distinction' at all between acts and omissions?

Hart and Honore

47

What needs to be seen together to find liability under supply of non-obviously dangerous products?

Supply of product and failure to warn - if they are not one, it is nonfeasance, not misfeasance

48

Smith v Littlewoods Corporation judgment

No breach of DoC - HoL unanimous in result but no in reasoning

49

What did a fear of deterring would-be rescuers through liability for exposing V to a new danger lead to in the US?

'Good Samaritan' statutes, recognising immunity in some cases

50

Jordan House v Menow general

Dark, drunk, regular

51

Gorringe v Calderdale judgment

Mere presence of statutory powers which, if exercised, might have prevented damage to C is not enough for a Doc

52

Adeels Palace v Moubarak

Owner of a bar/similar establishment owes a DoC to prevent a patron from harming others on premises

53

Hart and Honore on Nicholls' judgment in Stovin

Took his statement that 'distinction is not clear' between acts and omissions and said there is 'no rational distinction' at all

54

Council, unpleasant neighbour, meeting

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

55

Jebson v MoD judgment

Commanding officer AR for WHOLE activity, meaning MoD AR vicariously. Aim of event to get drunk, which CO knew

56

what would bender prefer tort focused on?

Interdependence rather than individualism

57

Hunter v Canary Wharf

Cannot claim in nuisance if C is not the owner of the land

58

From what jurisdiction is Jordan House v Menow?

Canada

59

Selwood v Durham CC judgment

No duty by health authority to world at large, but yes to social worker because small group of social workers involved in the case, and worked in close proximity with health authority

60

From what jurisdiction is Hahn v Conley?

HC of Australia

61

Goldman v Hargrave judgment

Privy Council found DoC to stop damage caused by D's property to neighbouring land

62

What is the political reason for limiting liability for omissions?

Restricts personal autonomy inappropriately

63

What case said AR give liability for omission only when intending to benefit a small class

Stradhar v National Environment

64

Name a case on a parent-child relationship and liability for omissions

Barrett v Enfield LBC; Hahn v Conley

65

Honore on Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender

Shows a broader principle so that innocent doing of harm/risk creation = a positive duty

66

What is the position in Australia on liability of owners of premises serving alcohol, and in what case?

Cole v South Tweed Heads; HC of Australia denied licensed club owes a DoC to stop patrons drinking to excess

67

what concern did the judges have in capital and Counties?

That liability would disturb the performance of fire brigades

68

What were the 3 conditions for recognising DoC for damage of 3rd given by Lord Goff in Smith v Littlewoods?

(1) AR towards C to prevent damage caused by 3rd, (2) D has a special relationship with 3rd or (3) D negligently creates the source of danger which 3rd foreseeably sparks off

69

Clark Fixing v Dudley Metropolitan BC judgment

Duty to stop spread of fire - knew of intrusions etc.

70

Why was a DoC found in Selwood v Durham CC?

small group of social workers involved in the case, and worked in close proximity with health authority

71

When might negligence be the only claim for liability for omission in occupation of land?

If C is not the owner/the claim is for personal injury/non-land interference: Hunter v Canary Wharf

72

What did Honore say of the categories for liability for omissions?

There is no 'neat pattern'

73

McIvor on cases where control imports responsibility and liability for third party actions

Need a very strong relationship between 'responsible' D and 'irresponsible' 3rd, C needs to be within a narrowly defined class of potential victims and harm-causing conduct of 3rd needs to be highly foreseeable

74

Name two cases at least where liability for actions of third parties arises out of serving alcohol

Adeels Palace v Moubarak; Childs v Desormeaux; Stewart v Pettie

75

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC judgment

No proximity by accepting call, and general reliance does not give a DoC. No AR by arriving due to statutory obligation to public at large, not a tortious obligation to X in particular. HOWEVER, negligent positive act through turning sprinklers off

76

Selwood v Durham CC general

Designated social worker, violent father

77

What does Williams claim about Kent?

Had little impact on negligence claims - less than 20 of 60 on negligent failure to attend resulted in compensation

78

Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

Staff in casualty department may AR by helping/advising a person seeking attention

79

Winfield v Jolowicz on Barrett

If officer had ignored him, would have been bound as generally accepted employers owe DoC to sick employees: Kasapis v Laimos

80

Stradhar v National Environment on undertaking responsibility

Lack of contact meant no DoC - expert knowledge does not of itself create a duty to use it for the public at large

81

Which case rejected that the mere presence of statutory powers which, if exercised, might have prevented damage to C is enough for a Doc?

Gorringe v Calderdale

82

Rodger and Hale in Mitchell v Glasgow

Focused on Council's actions as being entirely lawful, and thus not negligently creating any risk under 3rd by Goff in Smith

83

How can SoS for HD v Robb and Reeves v Commissioners be reconciled?

Police have a duty to deprive V as far as possible the means to self-injure, bar ACTUALLY using force

84

What is the stance in Canada on liability for serving alcohol and actions of third parties, and according to what case?

Stewart v Pettie: DoC owed by commercial premises serving alcohol to those who might be injured when patron leaves

85

Gorringe v Calderdale general

SLOW on road

86

Howarth on Tapp v London Country Bus

Criticised the CoA for relying on minority reasoning of Goff in Smith

87

What case is an example of the 3rd condition by Goff in Smith?

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths

88

SoS for HD v Robb judgment

No right to forcefeed a hunger strike prisoner

89

Stewart v Pettie does not apply to 'social hosts' unless they enhance the risk

Childs v Desormeaux

90

Kent v Griffiths judgment

CoA found DoC as made situation worse, and no duty to public AT LARGE - to specific X once call is allocated, and no need to worry about liability of others to distort performance

91

what case gave that danger to public at large was insufficient for DoC?

K v SoS for HD

92

Bender on lack of duty of rescue

Reflects a 'legal system devoid of car and responsiveness to the safety of others'

93

Lord Reid in HO v Dorset Yacht

Simple foreseeability of damage test

94

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis judgment

Authority liable for OWN negligence rather than vicarious liability through teacher's negligence - AR for control of child, creating a relationship of proximity with those foreseeably endangered by him

95

What case is an example of the 2nd condition by Goff in Smith?

HO v Dorset Yacht

96

What case suggested there may be liability if a manufacturer does not warn past consumers of a latent defect discovered in their product?

Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender

97

What Acts impose a duty on landowners to ensure land is reasonably safe for both trespassers and guests

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and 1984

98

Palmer v Tees Health Authority per Pill LJ

Question of whether V's identity is known should not determine proximity test outcome

99

Watson v British Boxing general

Medical supplies

100

Who criticised the CoA for relying on minority reasoning of Goff in Smith in Tapp v London Country Bus?

Howarth

101

Clark Fixing v Dudley Metropolitan BC general

Roof adjoining neighbours, intrusions and fires

102

What types of landlords does Mitchell v Glasgow cover?

Both public and private

103

Kevin Williams on reasons given in Stovin v Wise

Risks overlooking other relevant policy factors, e.g. that a life could be saved by a relatively trivial act

104

What case shows liability for omission by creating the risk in the first case?

Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield

105

How was the authority held liable for its own negligence in Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis?

AR for control of child, creating a relationship of proximity with those foreseeably endangered by him

106

From what jurisdiction is Cole v South Tweed Heads

HC of Australia

107

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC general

Sprinkler system, chief officer

108

Who asks Did D make things worse (act) or did he fail to make things better (omission)? in order to distinguish between acts and omissions?

L&O

109

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

HoL showed a clear preference for Goff's approach in Smith v Littlewoods

110

How do L&O criticise Goff's three conditions in Smith v Littlewoods?

Goff rejected foreseeability, and yet allowed DoC where D 'either knows or has the means of knowing' 3rd is causing damage - isn't this essentially foreseeability?

111

Sprinkler system, chief officer

Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC

112

Stewart v Pettie

SC of Canada found DoC owed by commercial premises serving alcohol to those who might be injured when patron leaves

113

Combustible material, storage unit

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths

114

Tall red gum, relight

Goldman v Hargrave

115

Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan

Liability of landowners established if damage/nuisance caused by trespassers (3rds) to a neighbour is 'adopted' or 'continued' by D

116

Goldman v Hargrave on liability of landowners to neighbours for acts of 3rds

Duty to protect neighbours from natural hazards on land

117

L&O on classic act/omission distinction

It is unhelpful

118

What is the moral reason for limiting liability for omissions?

The 'Why Pick On Me' argument, of all the possible defendants

119

Name at least two cases covering expert knowledge leading to liability for omission by undertaking responsibility for C's wellbeing

OLL Ltd v SoS; Capital and Counties; East Suffolk; Kent v Griffiths

120

Hope in Mitchell v Glasgow

Key question was no AR to warn C, and concern over onerous burden of DoC

121

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire judgment on acts of 3rds

No proximity - part of a large class and thus unforeseeable

122

What was the award in Jebson v MoD?

75% reduction due to P's contributory negligence

123

When is there liability for/a duty to rescue?

When D tries to rescue V, but instead exposes V to a new or increased danger

124

Goldman v Hargrave general

Tall red gum, relight

125

Reeves v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis on office of responsibility creating liability for omission

Institutions exercising extensive control over vulnerable people will often owe a DoC to prevent self-injury

126

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales judgment

Response to all by police was not AR, and not even AR to ensure she got called back

127

What two cases should be contrasted in the context of reliance on D's undertaking of responsibility for C's wellbeing?

Jebson v MoD and Barrett v MoD

128

Who said the 'distinction is not clear' between acts and omissions in Stovin?

Nicholls

129

How do L&O distinguish between acts and omissions?

Did D make things worse (act) or did he fail to make things better (omission)? Distinction is one of degree and different duties restrict liberty of action to different extents

130

What category of case for liability for omission does R v Imperial Tobacco come under?

Undertaking responsibility for C's wellbeing

131

Kent v Griffiths general

Asthma attack, ambulance, respiratory failure

132

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths judgment

Duty even without previous fires having been lit

133

Smith v Sussex, per Lord Bingham OBITER

Suggested Capital was a claim for property damage, whilst Kent was for personal injury where insurance is less likely

134

R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd general

Low-tar cigarettes, no warning

135

generally accepted employers owe DoC to sick employees

Kasapis v Laimos

136

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent judgment

Board only AR not to cause FURTHER damage, which they didn't

137

What judge in Stradhar emphasised that expert knowledge does not of itself create a duty to use it for the public at large?

Lord Hoffman

138

Who highlighted liability in a case like Capital would actually benefit fire insurers, not the public?

Winfield and Jolowicz

139

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

Medical professional not liable as long as he 'acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled' in the given area

140

Who found the Key question was no AR to warn C, and concern over onerous burden of DoC in Mitchell v Glasgow?

Lord Hope

141

Mitchell v Glasgow CC judgment

No DoC, unanimously decided in favour of Goff's no foreseeability test in Smith but differed on reasoning

142

What did trial judge stress in Lowns v Woods?

Doctor was approached in his office, during office hours

143

Name at least two cases showing liability for omission due to AR

White v Jones; Barnes v Hants; Stradhar v National Environment; Watson v British Boxing

144

OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport general

Coastguard, children, wrong direction

145

What case shows liability for omission can arise through occupation of land?

Goldman v Hargrave

146

Barnes v Hants judgment

School authorities AR for young children, arising from 'non-verbal conventions'

147

Who believed the reasons given in Stovin risk overlooking other relevant policy factors?

Kevin Williams

148

Name two cases on psychiatric patients leading to liability for acts of third parties

Palmer v Tees Health Authority; Selwood v Durham CC

149

Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and 1984

Duty to ensure land is reasonably safe for both trespassers and guests

150

Hill v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire general

Sutcliffe

151

Sandhu Menswear v Woolworths general

Combustible material, storage unit

152

What is the general rule for liability for acts of third parties?

Third party act breaks the chain of causation

153

How does Williams see the liability recognised in Kent reflected elsewhere?

GP duty through NHS Regulations 1992, which require them to help anyone in their practice area in immediate need if they are available and asked to attend

154

When did Lord Woolf in Kent suggest the outcome might be different?

If the case was about the allocation of resources

155

K v SoS for HD judgment

No relationship of proximity as mere knowledge D was a danger to public at large was insufficient

156

What did Lord Woolf suggest in Kent v Griffiths that was particularly hard to reconcile with Capital and Counties?

Even where there are multiple casualties, there is still a DoC - it will just be about whether it was breached

157

Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender judgment

Liability for latent defect discovered by consumer may create DoC to warn past consumers

158

Morrison v Lord Mayor of Sheffield judgment

CoA found DoC regardless of omission because they failed to eliminate the risk in changed circumstances

159

Why would Kent perhaps not survive Gorringe?

Ambulance services have a statutory power to prevent damage to C, but Gorringe suggests this is insufficient for DoC

160

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis general

Nursery, lorry driver

161

Kasapis v Laimos

generally accepted employers owe DoC to sick employees

162

Smith v Littlewoods corporation general

Derelict, cinema, teenagers, fire

163

Lowns v Woods judgment

Foreseeability alone is insufficient, but 'physical', 'circumstantial' and 'causal' proximity gave DoC - doctor approached during office hours , in his office

164

Minority (Lord Goff) in Smith v Littlewoods

No DoC ever arose, giving 3 conditions for recognising DoC for damage of 3rd

165

K v SoS for HD general

Rape by foreign citizen

166

Stradhar v National Environment general

Bangladesh, water

167

Hobbs (Farms) v Baxender general

Latent defect

168

School authorities

Barnes v Hants

169

Epilepsy, 300m

Lowns v Woods

170

Barrett v MoD judgment

CoA found DoC when senior officer found him, but no DoC solely from broader context suggesting possibility of drunkenness

171

OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport judgment

No DoC of coastguard

172

Who said in Kent that it would be 'offensive to concepts of common humanity' not to recognise a duty?

Turner J

173

Barrett v MoD general

Naval airman, vomit.

174

Kent v Griffiths on doctors and development

Liability can arise not only from careless treatment but unreasonable delay leading to a deterioration in V's condition

175

Suicide prisoner, transfer

Reeves v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis

176

GP duty through NHS Regulations 1992

Requires them to help anyone in their practice area in immediate need if they are available and asked to attend

177

What is a positive of the three conditions given by Goff in Smith v Littlewoods?

Favours D as existence of DoC is a question of fact that can be raised as a preliminary issue, avoiding a full trial

178

Sea wall, 178 days

East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v Kent

179

What judge and in what case gave policy reasons for limiting liability for omissions?

Lord Hoffman in Stovin v Wise

180

No general duty of good parenting

Barrett v Enfield LBC

181

Who argued no DoC ever arose in Smith v Littlewoods?

Lord Goff

182

Capital and Counties on doctors

Doctors are not obliged to be a Good Samaritan

183

Hahn v Conley

High Court of Australia, no general DoC simply due to a 'blood relationship'

184

Childs v Desormeaux

Stewart v Pettie does not apply to 'social hosts' unless they enhance the risk

185

Stradhar v National Environment judgment on AR

AR ONLY where there is intention to benefit a small class

186

Williams on Bolam v Friern Hospital Management

Emphasises importance of doctors' ethical obligations being translated into law, in particular the Hippocratic Oath

187

Reeves v Commissioners of Police for the Metropolis general

Suicide prisoner, transfer

188

Home Office v Dorset Yacht judgment

HoL agreed on DoC, but disagreed on basis

189

White v Jones general

Solicitor

190

In what case did the HoL show a clear preference for Goff's approach in Smith v Littlewoods?

Mitchell v Glasgow CC

191

Coastguard, children, wrong direction

OLL Ltd v SoS for Transport

192

Name at least two cases where question of liability for omission arose out of D undertaking responsibility for C's wellbeing

Stradhar v National Environment; R v Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd; Capital and Counties; East Suffolk; OLL v SoS etc.

193

What is the position in Canada on liability of owners of premises serving alcohol?

Jordan House v Menow - DoC to regular

194

Lord Pearson, Diplock and Morice in Dorset Yacht

Considered underlying policy factors on existence and scope of DoC

195

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales general

Ex-partner, misallocation of call, 60 mins, dead in 15

196

Palmer v Tees Health Authority

4 year old abduction, nightmares

197

Mitchell v Glasgow CC general

Council, unpleasant neighbour, meeting

198

Who criticised a lack of duty of rescue in English law?

Bender

Decks in Law Second Year Class (74):