Tort Law - Remoteness Flashcards Preview

Law Second Year > Tort Law - Remoteness > Flashcards

Flashcards in Tort Law - Remoteness Deck (66):
1

What new concept has been used to limit D's liability if loss was unusual or unexpected?

Scope of duty of car

2

Wagon Mound (No.1) general

Oil, fire, wharf

3

Oil, fire, wharf

Wagon Mound (No.1)

4

Wagon Mound (No.1) judgment

Damage needs to be reasonably foreseeable

5

Re Pollemis judgment

Made D liable for all loss directly caused by his/her negligence

6

What case did the court depart from in Wagon Mound?

Re Pollemis

7

Wagon Mound on 'kinds of harm' reasonably foreseeable

Damage by FIRE, not just by oil fouling

8

What did Viscount Simonds say of Re Pollemis in Wagon Mound?

Inconsistent with 'justice or morality'

9

What two tests did they align in Wagon Mound?

Compensation and liability tests - both reasonably foreseeable

10

Re Pollemis general

Rope, boards, spark

11

Fleming on Wagon Mound

Can be good reasons for holding D liable for unforeseeable injury - same test need not apply to compensation and liability

12

Who criticised Wagon Mound as can be good reasons for holding D liable for unforeseeable injury?

Fleming

13

Smith v Leech Brain general

Burned lip, cancer triggered

14

Burned lip, cancer triggered

Smith v Leech Brain

15

Smith v Leech Brain judgment

Damage recoverable - wide view on type/kind of injury

16

What case took a wide view on type/kind of injury?

Smith v Leech Brain

17

What are the two ways to interpret Smith v Leech Brain?

Wagon Mound doesn't apply to 'thin skull' cases, or applies but extent of damage irrelevant as long as TYPE foreseeable

18

Langden v O'Connor general

Financial vulnerability, car hire

19

Financial vulnerability, car hire

Langden v O'Connor

20

Langden v O'Connor judgment

Recoverable because C impecunious

21

How did Lord Nicholls described 'impecunious' in Langden v O'Connor?

When C would have had to make sacrifices it would be unreasonable to expect him to make

22

What judge in Langden v O'Connor gave a definition of 'impecunious'?

Lord Nicholls

23

Hughes v Lord Advocate general

Manhole, child, paraffin lamp

24

Manhole, child, paraffin lamp

Hughes v Lord Advocate

25

Hughes v Lord Advocate judgment

Injury caused by known source of danger, and thus unforeseeable manner not a defence

26

What case showed that knowing a source of danger is sufficient, even if manner in which the harm is caused by source is unforeseen?

Hughes v Lord Advocate

27

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing general

Asbestos lid, burning P

28

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing judgment

Burning by splashing foreseeable, but not by lid causing change in chemical composition

29

Asbestos lid, burning P

Doughty v Turner Manufacturing

30

AG v Hartwell

Nicholls doubted Doughty would commend to modern courts

31

What judge and in what case doubted Doughty v Turner Manufacturing would commend to modern courts?

Lord Nicholls in AG v Hartwell

32

Jolley v Sutton LBC general

Wooden boat, repair

33

Jolley v Sutton LBC judgment

Only GENUS of damage need be foreseen, not species

34

Wooden boat, repair

Jolley v Sutton LBC

35

What case suggested only genus of damage need be foreseen, not species?

Jolley v Sutton LBC

36

Foster v Maguire

Broad question in Jolley v Sutton LBC suggests affirmative answer to duty necessarily means damage not too remote

37

What judge in what case highlighted how broad question in Jolley v Sutton LBC suggests affirmative answer to duty necessarily means damage not too remote?

Sir Anthony Evans in Foster v Maguire

38

What judge in Foster v Maguire highlighted how broad q in Jolley suggested yes to duty means damage not too remote?

Sir Anthony Evans

39

Spencer v Wincanton general

Amputee, petrol

40

Spencer v Wincanton on remoteness

Within categories of remoteness as simply one kind of falling

41

Why was there no NA in Spencer v Wincanton?

Inconvenience of using prosthetic

42

Page v Smith general

ME, turning

43

Page v Smith judgment

Physical and psychiatric injury one type/kind of damage

44

What case gave, essentially, a category of 'personal injury' as damage required to be foreseen not to be too remote?

Page v Smith

45

How did Page v Smith give an even wider classification than in Holly?

'Personal injury' included physical and psychiatric injury

46

What case showed an abandonment of 'type of harm' approach?

Page v Smith

47

Bailey and Nolan on Page

Its 'long term prospects... look slim'

48

L&O on Page

Difficult to see RF role in remoteness if still good law

49

Jolley v Sutton LBC, per Lord Hoffmann on Page v Smith

Suggested at least where children are involved, D under duty to take steps to avoid some risks, and would have cost no more to avoid risk that materialised

50

What judge in what cases suggested that, at least where children involved, D should be liable if under duty to avoid risks, and cost of avoiding risk that materialised was no more?

Lord Hoffmann in Jolley v Sutton LBC

51

Bradford v Robinson Rentals general

Frostbite, windows open

52

Bradford v Robinson Rentals judgment

Injury foreseeable due to breach

53

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals general

Glass ampoules, water and explosion

54

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals judgment

Small explosion foreseeable, so all damage even though extent unforeseeable

55

What case is inconsistent with Doughty?

Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals

56

Harris, Campbell and Halson on RT

Two RF tests for liability and remoteness are different

57

What do Harris, Campbell and Halson argue is the test for RT in liability?

Look at range of risks D MIGHT create IF negligent as a general question

58

What do Harris, Campbell and Halson argue is the test for RT in remoteness?

Reasonable man has benefit of knowing HOW D acted, which may widen or narrow foresight

59

What are two problems with attributing Harris, Campbell and Halson tests of RF to courts?

Unforeseeable C rule, and what room is there for foreseeability of harm at remoteness if DoC is relative to harm of a particular type

60

Bourhill v Young general

P not foreseeable V of motorcyclist negligence

61

Bourhill v Young judgment

If used Harris, Campbell and Halson approach, hard to see how couldn't have found a risk he would hit her

62

What is the unforeseeable C rule?

Deciding from circumstances if C was inside zone of risk

63

South Australia v Asset Management general

Negligently overprice, crash in property

64

South Australia v Asset Management judgment

D not liable for loss in value attributable to property crash because scope of liability didn't extend that far

65

What case shows courts referring to 'scope of liability' in reference to remoteness?

South Australia v Asset Management

66

Negligently overprice, crash in property

South Australia v Asset Management

Decks in Law Second Year Class (62):