Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Private Law II > Week 14: Negligence > Flashcards

Week 14: Negligence Flashcards

(73 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What does Liability for unintentional harm mean?

A

Liability for unintentional harm = Negligence

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

When is unintentional harm legally actionable?

A

Unintentional harm is actionable when there is a breach of a legal duty owed by the wrongdoer.

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

What is reparation owed for in negligence cases?

A

Reparation is owed for damnum injuria datum, which means loss caused by a legal wrong.

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

What do we call harm that occurs without a breach of legal duty?

A

Harm without a breach of legal duty is called damnum absque injuria (loss without legal wrong).

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

What must liability for breach of duty generally involve?

A

Liability must generally involve fault.

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

How do we determine if there is liability for negligence?

A

We determine liability by applying a series of tests to see if the defender was negligent.

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

What happens if one of the negligence tests is answered negatively?

A

If one test is negative, there is no negligence and therefore no liability.

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

What is the first test in establishing negligence?

A

Duty of care — Did the defender owe the pursuer a duty to take reasonable care?

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

Is a duty of care owed to everyone?

A

No — it’s owed only to those within the scope of foreseeable harm.

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

What must the pursuer prove first in a negligence claim?

A

That the defender owed them a duty of care.

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

What’s the second test in negligence?

A

Breach of duty — Was the duty not properly carried out?

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

When do we move to the third test?

A

After proving both duty of care and breach.

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

What is the third test in negligence?

A

Causal link — Did the breach cause the harm?

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

What are the two types of causation to prove?

A

Factual (but for test) and legal (effective cause).

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

What is the fourth test in negligence?

A

Remoteness — Is the loss too remote or proximate?

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

What kind of losses are normally recoverable?

A

Personal injury and property damage from positive acts.

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

What types of losses may be recoverable in some cases?

A

Omissions, third-party harm, reputation, liberty, economic loss, psychiatric harm, etc.

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

What is the remedy for negligence?

A

Damages (money compensation).

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

What happens to losses that are too remote?

A

They won’t be compensated.

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

What is the fifth test in negligence claims?

A

Defences — Can the defender rely on a legal defence?

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

What effect does contributory negligence have?

A

Damages are reduced/apportioned if the pursuer contributed to their own harm.

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

What is the essential prerequisite for liability for negligently caused harm?

A

The duty of care is the essential prerequisite for liability for negligently caused harm.

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

What limits the scope of liability in negligence cases?

A

The duty of care limits the scope of liability in negligence cases.

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

How is duty of care used in legal reasoning?

A

Duty of care is used as a threshold device to open up or restrict liability.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Is duty of care owed to everyone?
No, duty of care is owed to a specific pursuer, not to the whole wide world.
26
What is the first test in establishing liability?
The first test is whether a duty of care is owed by the defender to the pursuer.
27
Who must owe the duty of care for liability to be established?
The defender must owe the duty of care to that particular pursuer.
28
Is the duty of care a strict obligation?
No, the duty of care is to take reasonable care, not a strict obligation
29
What happened in Donoghue v Stevenson?
In Donoghue v Stevenson, Mrs Donoghue drank ginger beer containing a snail and became ill, so she sued the manufacturer for negligence.
30
What legal principle was established in Donoghue v Stevenson?
Donoghue v Stevenson established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers, even without a contract.
31
What is the neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson?
The neighbour principle says you owe a duty of care to those closely and directly affected by your actions.
32
What did the House of Lords decide in Donoghue v Stevenson?
The House of Lords decided Stevenson owed a duty of care because it was foreseeable that a snail in the bottle could harm a consumer.
33
Why was it fair to impose a duty of care in Donoghue v Stevenson?
It was fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care because harm was foreseeable and the consumer was directly affected.
34
To whom is the duty of care owed in negligence?
The duty of care is not owed to the whole world—only to those who are reasonably foreseeable and sufficiently proximate to the harm.
35
When is a duty of care owed to a pursuer?
A duty of care is owed if it’s reasonably foreseeable that the defender’s acts or omissions may affect the specific pursuer, considering foreseeability and proximity.
36
What happened in Bourhill v Young?
In Bourhill v Young, a pregnant woman heard a motorcycle crash, saw the aftermath, went into shock, and later gave birth to a stillborn child.
37
Why did Mrs. Bourhill sue in Bourhill v Young?
Mrs. Bourhill sued for psychiatric harm, claiming the motorcycle accident caused her shock and miscarriage.
38
What was the decision in Bourhill v Young?
The court decided no duty of care was owed because it wasn’t foreseeable she would suffer harm and she wasn’t close enough to the accident.
39
Why were no damages awarded in Bourhill v Young?
No damages were awarded because Mrs. Bourhill wasn’t within the required proximity to the accident.
40
What legal principle does Bourhill v Young illustrate?
Bourhill v Young shows that duty of care isn’t owed to everyone—only to foreseeable and proximate individuals.
41
What happened in Muir v Glasgow Corporation?
In Muir v Glasgow Corporation, a tearoom manager let a picnic group inside during rain, and a tea urn spilled, scalding children.
42
Why was the Glasgow Corporation sued in Muir v Glasgow Corporation?
The Corporation was sued after children were scalded by a tea urn spill in a tearoom they had been allowed to enter.
43
What did the court decide about duty of care in Muir v Glasgow Corporation?
The court decided there was no liability because the harm wasn’t reasonably foreseeable, so no duty of care was owed in that circumstance.
44
Why was there no liability in Muir v Glasgow Corporation?
There was no liability because the risk of the urn spilling and injuring children wasn’t reasonably foreseeable.
45
What is the first element of the Tripartite Test in establishing a duty of care?
The first element of the Tripartite Test is foreseeability of harm—it must be reasonably foreseeable that the defender’s actions could cause harm to the pursuer.
46
What is the second element of the Tripartite Test in establishing a duty of care?
The second element is proximity of parties—there must be a close and direct relationship between the defender and the pursuer.
47
What is the third element of the Tripartite Test in establishing a duty of care?
The third element is whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances.
48
What does tripartite test determine?
The tripartite test determines whether a duty of care exists in a particular situation
49
How are the questions of 'to whom' and 'in respect of what' addressed in negligence law?
The questions of 'to whom' and 'in respect of what' are addressed using the concepts of foreseeability and proximity.
50
Why is a duty of care owed in common situations like employment or road accidents?
A duty of care is owed not just because harm is foreseeable, but because there is proximity—like between employer and employee or drivers and road users.
51
According to Lord Hope in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council, what creates a duty of care?
Lord Hope said the relationship creates the duty, and the scope is determined by what is reasonably foreseeable in that relationship.
52
What happened in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council?
In Mitchell v Glasgow, a tenant was killed by his neighbour after the council warned the neighbour but didn’t inform the victim.
53
What was the legal issue in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council?
The issue was whether the council owed a duty of care to inform Mr. Mitchell about the warning given to his violent neighbour.
54
What did the court decide in Mitchell v Glasgow City Council?
The court held that the council did not owe a duty of care because warning the neighbour didn’t create sufficient proximity or foreseeability.
55
What happened in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire?
In Hill, a woman sued the police for failing to catch a serial killer who murdered her daughter, claiming negligence.
56
Why was there no duty of care in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire?
There was no duty of care because the police do not owe a general duty to apprehend unknown criminals or protect individual victims without proximity.
57
What exception exists to the police duty rule from Hill?
An exception exists if the police create an exceptional risk beyond the general public risk, establishing proximity.
58
What precedent did Hill v Chief Constable set?
Hill set the precedent that police owe no general duty of care to prevent crime unless there's special proximity.
59
What happened in Bolton v Stone?
In Bolton v Stone, a woman was hit by a rare cricket ball that flew over a tall fence from a nearby pitch.
60
Why did the claim fail in Bolton v Stone?
The claim failed because the risk of harm was very low, and the defendants had not breached their duty of care.
61
What principle does Bolton v Stone illustrate?
Bolton v Stone shows that where the risk is minimal, no negligence arises if reasonable precautions were taken.
62
What rule was confirmed in The Wagon Mound (No. 2)?
The Wagon Mound (No. 2) confirmed that in nuisance, only reasonably foreseeable harm is recoverable in damages.
63
What is the significance of Caparo v Dickman in negligence law?
Caparo v Dickman is the case that established the Tripartite Test for duty of care: foreseeability, proximity, and fairness.
64
What assumption does Caparo v Dickman begin with?
Caparo starts with the assumption that no duty is owed unless all three criteria of the test are satisfied.
65
What happened in Hughes v Lord Advocate?
In Hughes v Lord Advocate, a child was injured by an explosion caused by an unattended paraffin lamp near a manhole.
66
Why did the claim succeed in Hughes v Lord Advocate?
The claim succeeded because it was reasonably foreseeable that someone could be burned by the lamp, even if the explosion itself wasn’t specifically predicted.
67
What principle about foreseeability was established in Hughes v Lord Advocate?
Hughes established that the type of harm must be foreseeable, not the exact way it occurs.
68
Is it necessary for the exact details of an accident to be foreseeable according to Hughes?
No, it is enough if the type of accident was foreseeable, not the precise sequence of events.
69
Why was the paraffin lamp considered dangerous in Hughes v Lord Advocate?
The lamp was a known source of danger, so it was foreseeable that it could cause burns.
70
Does a duty of care depend on the pursuer’s particular characteristics?
No, a duty doesn’t arise from unknown susceptibility, but the thin skull rule applies if there is a breach.
71
What is the thin skull rule in negligence law?
The thin skull rule means the wrongdoer must take the victim as they find them, even if the victim has an unusual vulnerability.
72
What did Lord Clyde say in McKillen v Barclay-Curle & Co Ltd about vulnerable victims?
Lord Clyde said a negligent person is liable even if the victim had a weak heart and died, while a normal person might have had only minor injuries.
73
What happens if the victim has an unknown medical condition?
If there’s a breach, the wrongdoer is still liable for full harm—even from an unknown condition—under the thin skull rule.

Private Law II (19 decks)

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