Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Law Y2 > Tort S1 > Flashcards

Tort S1 Flashcards

(80 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

WVH Rogers(ed), Winfieldand Jolowicz on Tort

A

negligence as a tort is a breach of a legal duty to take care which results in damage to the claimant’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL)

A

You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728

A

The Anns test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)

A

Three stage test

  • existing Duties
  • forseeability
  • Fair just and reasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Woodland v SwimmingTeachers Association

A

a duty of care exists between school and child

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Pippin v Sheppard (1822) 147 ER 512 (Ct of Ex.)

A

A duty of care exists between doctor and patient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Dulieu vWhite & Sons [1901] 2 KB 669 (KB)

A

A duty of care exists between road users

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English [1938] AC 57 (HL)

A

A duty of care exists between employer and employee

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Arthur JS Hall & Co v Simons [2002] 1 AC 615 (HL)

A

A duty of care exists between lawyer and client

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778 (HL)

A

Foreseeability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398 (HL)

A

Proximity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] 1 AC 874 (HL)

A

Fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Blyth v BirminghamWaterworks

A

“…the omission to do something which the reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Hall v Brooklands Auto- Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205 (CA), 224 (Greer LJ)

A

the man on the Clapham Omnibus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Nettleship vWeston [1971] 2 QB 691 (CA)

A

The “reasonable man” is an objective standard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295

A

A child is held to the standard objectively expected of a child of that age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1WLR 582 (QB)

A

A defendant is held to the standard of the ordinary skilled man professing to exercise the relevant skill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Wilsher v Essex AHA [1987] QB 730 (CA)

A

Junior doctor = the reasonably competent doctor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998] AC 232 (HL)

A

The professional practice adopted must be “reasonable” and “logical”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11

A

A doctor has a duty to warn patients of any risk where a reasonable person would attach significance to that risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850 (HL)

A

The more likely the harm the more the reasonable man would have done to prevent it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Roe v Ministry of Health [1954] 2 QB 66 (CA)

A

The defendant’s conduct will be assessed at the time of the breach and NOT with hindsight

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 (HL)

A

The more serious the injury, the more the “reasonable man” would have done to prevent it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Watt v Hertfordshire County Council

[1954] 1WLR 835 (CA)

A

The greater the “social value” of the activity, the lower the courts’ safety expectations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
s.1 Compensation Act 2006
(a) prevent desirable activity from being undertaken at all, to a particular extent or in a particular way, or (b) discourage persons from undertaking functions in connection with a desirable activity.'
26
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks Co | [1865] All ER Rep 248
The circumstances of the case can sometimes be evidence of carelessness - "res ipsa loquitur"
27
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] 1 QB 428 (QBD)
Classic example of and authority for the "but for" test in tort law
28
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority | [1988] 1 AC 1074 (HL)
Where there are multiple potential causes D may escape liability (non-cumulative condition)
29
Bonnington Castings Ltd vWardlaw [1956] 2WLR 707 (HL)
Exception: Material contribution to harm (Cumulative conditions)
30
McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1 (HL)
exception: Material increase in risk (Non-cumulative conditions)
31
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2002] UKHL 22
Exception: Unjust results: mesothelioma | An non-cumulative condition
32
Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20
Proportionate damages introduced for non- cumulative conditions involving multiple Ds
33
Chester v Asfar [2005] UKHL 41
Exception: Unjust results: a failure to inform
34
Fitzgerald v Lane [1989] AC 328 (HL)
Exception: Indeterminate causes
35
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority | [1998] AC 232 (HL)
Exception: Uncertain actions
36
Jobling v Associated Diaries Ltd [1982] AC 794 (HL)
A subsequent naturally occurring event will end the earlier tortious liability
37
Murrell v Healy [2001] EWCA Civ 486
A subsequent negligent event will usually result in divided tortious liability
38
OverseasTankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co (TheWagon Mound) No 1 [1961]AC 388 (PC)
Remoteness test = was the kind of damage reasonably foreseeable at the point of breach?
39
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co | [1964] 1 QB 518 (CA)
What counts is whether the kind of damage was foreseeable, rather than the extent
40
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837
What counts is whether the kind of damage was foreseeable, rather than the extent
41
Smith v Leech Brain & Co Ltd [1962] 2 QB 405
A defendant is liable for the full extent of harm caused, even if more than might be expected due to weakness or frailty ("egg shell skull" rule)
42
Lagden v O'Connor [2003] UKHL 64
The "egg shell skull" rule also applies to economic harms
43
Rouse v Squires [1973] 1 QB 889
a subsequent negligent act may not be enough break the chain of causation
44
Knightly v Johns [1982] 1WLR 349
a subsequent negligent act may break the chain of causation
45
s.1 Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978
Subject to the following provisions of this section, any person liable in respect of any damage suffered by another person may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly with him or otherwise).
46
example of a "contribution"
Wright v Lodge [1993] 4 All ER 299 (CA)
47
McKew v Holland and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621 (HL)
a claimant's negligence may break the chain of causation (but mere unreasonable conduct is not enough
48
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [1990] 2 QB 283 (CA)
a claimant does not break the chain of causation by committing suicide in custody
49
Gray vThamesTrains [2009] UKHL 33
The claimant's later criminal act will break the chain of causation
50
Smith v Charles Baker & Sons | [1891] AC 325 (HL), 360 (Lord Herschell)
'...one who had invited or assented to an act being done towards him cannot, when he suffers it, complain of it as a wrong.'
51
White v Blackmore [1972] 2 QB 651 (CA)
consent to an exclusion of liability will negative duty (where valid under UCTA77)
52
Dann v Hamilton [1939] 1 KB 509
Knowledge of risk alone is insufficient - there must be consent to the risk
53
Morris v Murray [1991] 2 QB 6 (CA)
Knowledge of risk alone is insufficient - there must be consent to the risk
54
Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 (CA)
A sports player may consent to the risk of injury, but such consent does not extend to serious foul play
55
Gray v Thames Trains [2009] UKHL 33
key example of and authority for the illegality defence
56
Vellino v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police [2001] EWCA Civ 1249
another example of the illegality defence in action
57
Hounga v Allen [2014] UKSC 47
Illegality will not bar the claim when it merely provides the context
58
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
the courts adopt a flexible, balancing approach to the defence of illegality
59
s.1(1) and s. 4 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault...the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks it is just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage.'
60
Jones v Livox Quarries Ltd [1952] 2 QB 608 (CA)
the courts adopt an objective standard when judging C's conduct
61
Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286 (CA)
contributory negligence will reduce damages by an amount that reflects C's comparative blameworthiness
62
Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5
the allocation of liability is subjective and judgments of lower courts should be respected where they are reasonable
63
Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66
a school owes its pupils a "non-delegable" duty of care
64
Stephenson Jordan & Harrison Ltd v McDonall & Evans [1952] 1TLR 101 (CA)
The courts have traditionally used "control" as the test for employment-like relationships
65
Various Claimants v Catholic ChildWelfare Society and Others [2012] UKSC 56
The modern test: is the relationship "akin to employment"
66
Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10
a prisoner completing paid work in a prison is in a relationship "akin to employment"
67
Majrowski v Guy's and StThomas' NHSTrust [2006] UKHL 34
an "employer" may be equally liable for intentional torts
68
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] UKHL 22
The modern test = the "close connection" test
69
Mohamud v W M Morrison Supermarkets plc [2016] UKSC 11
The court interprets "close connection" loosely...
70
Livingstone v Raywards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cas 25, 39 (Lord Blackburn)
compensatory damages the sum of money which will put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position he would have been in if he had not sustained the wrong
71
Wells vWells [1999] 1AC 345 (HL)
court sure the ogden tables to calculate damages for the claimants lifetime
72
s.1 Fatal Accidents Act 1976
The relatives of a deceased may bring a claimant for their losses, including bereavement
73
ss. 2, 11 and 33 Limitation Act 1980
limitation periods for tortious claims s. 2 tort six years from the tort s. 11 PI - three years from the tort or knowledge s. 33 court discretion to extend
74
CPR 1.1
the overriding objective enabling the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost.
75
CPR 12
Default Judgment
76
CPR 3.4
Strike out
77
CPR 3.1(3)
Unless orders
78
CPR 24
Summary judgement
79
CPR 25.12
security for costs
80
what is a document?
CPR 31.4 'document’ means anything in which information of any description is recorded

Law Y2 (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions