Tort of Negligence Flashcards
(34 cards)
Name the two types of liability
Fault liability
Strict liability
Explain fault liability
Liability which specifically is assigned to the personal misconduct of an individual
Explain strict liability
-Liability not for any misbehaviour(negligence/personal misconduct) of the individual attached to it
-but still responsible
What is the first step for holding a person accountable in the dcfr
The Basis rule- Book VI 1:101 DCFR
What are the steps for assessing whether someone has fault liability
Step I: The Basic Rule (VI I:101 DCFR)
Step 2: Was it intentional or negligent (VI-1:01) a
Step 3: Asses either intentent or negligence (Art VI. -3:101(1) DCFR or Art. VI.-3:102 DCFR)
Step 5- degrees of fault
Step 6- Possible excuses/defenses of fraud
-Mental Incompetence -Art VI. -5:301 DCFR
-Events Beyond Control- Art. VI-5:302 DCFR
-Persons under 18- Art. VI.-3:103 DCFR
List the defences for fault liability
-Mental incompetence: Art. VI.-5:301 DCFR
-Events Beyond Control- Art. VI.-5:302 DCFR
-Persons under 18- Art. VI-3:103 DCFR
-Self-defense, benevolent intervention and necessity
Consent and acting at own risk – VI-5:101
Damage caused by a criminal to a collaborator – VI- 5:103
Authority conferred by law – VI-5:201
Contributory fault and accountability-– VI-5:102
Describe the facts of the Donoghue v. Stevenson Case
-SNAIL IN DA GINGER ALE
Explain the judgement of the Donoghue v. Stevenson Case
-DoC found in concept of:
-love thy/ take care of your neighbour
-should avoid acts/omissions
-that would reasonably/ plausibly injure your neighbour
-NOT VERY Clear
-clarified in Caparo v. Dickman
What were the questions of law in the Donoghue v. Stevenson case?
-Does the producer owe a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue?
What do the rules developed in Caparo Industries v. Dickman test for
Duty of care
Describe the Duty of Care according to Caparo Industries v. Dickman
- Foreseeability of damage
- Proximity (nearness)
- Fair, just and reasonable
What were the case facts of Caparo Industries v. Dickman
- firm of accountants appealed against a decision of the Court of A.
-decided that the accountants owed a duty of care to the appellant shareholders when produ. an audit report req. by state
-Audit was inaccurate
-causing losses
What were the facts of the L’Olympique lyonnais v. Fuster Case
-21 year old Serge Fuster dies during a football match
-when a hooligan causes an explosion
-Parents, brothers and sisters claim compensation:
-from THE FOOTBALL CLUB
Describe the question of law of the L’Olympique Lyonnais v. Fuster Case
-Is the football club liable for the death of Serge Fuster?
What was the judgment of the L’Olympique Lyonnais v. Fuster case?
-The football club is liable for his death
-Forseeable death:
-33k spectators
-strong indicators of viol. incidents
-no inspection to prevent spectators from carrying objects which could cause injury
-opposing spectators not at a safe distance from each other
What were the facts of the lettuce leaf case
-Plaintiff slipped on a lettuce leaf in a shop and fell
What was the judgment of the Lettuce leaf case
- Shop is liable but liability + price of compensation reduced due to contributory negligence of the customer
Explain the judgment of the lettuce leaf case
- Shop is liable but liability + price of compensation reduced due to contributory negligence of the customer
-Shop–> must take care of customer due 2 contract of sale and under gen. duty of safety
-Customer–> also partially (to lesser extent) responsbile
-busy day in the veg. and fruit department
What were the facts of the Smith v. Littlewoods organisation case?
- Defendants bought an old movie theatre
-Vandals gained access and attempted to set fire to the property
-defendants and POPO did not know
-premises caught fire
-damage to neighbouring properties
What was the question of law in the Smith v. Littlewoods organisation case?
Did the owners of the cinema owe a duty of care to the owners of the neighbour property?
What was the judgment in the Smith v. Littlewoods organisation case?
“No general duty of care to prevent a third party from causing damage to the plaintiff by deliberate wrongdoing” → special circumstances are required,
-where the defendant negligently permits or creates a source of danger
-“Common law does not normally impose liability for pure omissions”
-No negligence (?) Ask about this
What are the facts of the White v. Jones case?
- Mr White wanted to leave 9000 euros to his two daughters
-chose to exclude at the point of the will’s initial drafting
-but then wanted to change
-solicitor took a real long time
-will remaine unchanged
-daughters take solicitor court for prof. negligence
What does the test in the White v. Jones case test for?
-duty of care
What were the rules developed in White v. Jones?
-duty of care=
-foreseeability
-sufficient proximity
-fairness
-reasonability
(adding on to Caparo industries v. Dickman rules)
