Tort Flashcards

(83 cards)

1
Q

What is the Caparo Test used for in duty of care cases?

A

It assesses whether a duty of care exists based on:
1) reasonable foresight of harm
2) sufficient proximity of relationship
3) whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.

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

What does the maxim ‘res ipsa loquitur’ imply in negligence cases?

A

It implies that the ‘accident speaks for itself’

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

What are the 3 conditions for ‘res ipsa loquitur’

A

Three conditions to be met:
1) The thing causing damage was under the defendant’s control
2) The accident wouldn’t normally happen without negligence
3) The cause is unknown to the claimant

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

In cases with multiple causes - the claimant needs to show the defendan’t breach —— contributed to the damage?

A

The claimant only needs to show that the defendant’s breach materially contributed to the damage.

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

What is the difference between divisible and indivisible injuries?

A

Divisible injuries allow damage to be apportioned according to each defendant’s contribution

Indivisible injuries allow the claimant to recover full damages from any single defendant.

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

What reductions in damages apply for not wearing a seatbelt?

A

A 25% reduction if injuries could have been avoided
15% reduction if injuries would be less severe
0% if wearing a seatbelt would not have made a difference.

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

What constitutes necessity in the context of trespass to land?

A

Necessity arises from immediate danger to life, limb, or property

Where the defendant’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances, provided they were not due to the defendant’s own negligence.

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

How does the negligent act of a third party affect the chain of causation?

A

It will break the chain if the act is unforeseeably negligent, but not if it is foreseeable.

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

What type of conduct by a third party is more likely to break the chain of causation?

A

Reckless or intentional conduct, unless the defendant ought to have foreseen it.

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

Under what condition will a deliberate act of a third party not break the chain of causation?

A

If the act is foreseeable and the defendant is responsible for the behavior of the third party, such as foreseen violence of football fans.

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

When can a claimant’s own behavior break the chain of causation?

A

It will only break the chain if it is entirely unreasonable; otherwise, it is more likely to be considered contributory negligence.

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

Test for economic loss to determine whether there is an exception due to a special relationship

A

1) Defendant must have known purpose for which advise was required
2) Defendant must know advice would be communicated to claimant
3) Defendant must know the claimant was likely to act on advice without independent enquiry
4) Advice must have been acted on by claimant to its detriment

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

Test for secondary victims of pure psychiatric harm (Alcock control measures)

A

a) Foreseeability of psychiatric harm - must be reasonably foreseeable a person of normal fortitude would suffer psychiatric illness
b) Proximity of relationship - must have close relationship of love and affection with primary victim
c) Proximity in time and space - must be present at accident or immediate aftermath
d) Proximity of perception must see or hear the accident or its immediate aftermath with their own senses

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

Who can claim for loss of dependency? + must also be financially dependent on the deceased

A

a) Current and former married spouses/civil partners, cohabitees who have lived together for at least two years
b) Direct ancestors and descendants - generally child’s period of dependency ends when they reach 18 but is extended where they are in full time education
c) Siblings, aunts, and uncles and their descendants
d) Those treated as children by the deceased in relation to a marriage or civil partnership

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

Who can claim for bereavement damages

A

a) Wife, husband or civil partner of deceased
b) the parents of a minor who was never married
c) The cohabiting partner of the deceased who:

  • Was living with decased immediately before death
  • Had been living with them for at least 2 years
  • Was living during the whole of the period as husband / wife
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What damages can be claimed by the estate under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934?

A

Allows deceased estate to claim for losses incurred between injury and death and loss of earnings up to date of death

E.g. pain and suffering, property damage, medical expenses, funeral expenses

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

What damages be claimed by dependants under the the Fatal Accidents Act 1976?

A

Allows dependents to claim for loss of dependency and fixed sum for bereavement damages (if on list)

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

When is a duty to provide competent fellow workers breached?

A

The duty to provide competent fellow workers is only breached where an employer knows, or ought to know, about the risk a particular employee is posing to fellow workers

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

How can someone exclude liability for pure economic loss?

A

Subject to reasonableness test under UCTA (non-consumers) or fairness test under CRA (for consumers).

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

What is the test for primary victims?

A

Individuals actually involved in the incident or who reasonably believed they were in danger

They must not have suffered physical injury

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

What are included in special damages?

A

Quantifiable financial losses incurred before the trial, such as pre-trial loss of earnings and medical expenses.

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

What are included in general damages?

A

Losses that are not precisely quantifiable at trial, including pain, suffering, and future loss of earnings.

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

What are non-pecuniary losses

A

Subjective losses such as pain and suffering and objective losses like loss of amenity.

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

What are pecuniary losses

A

Include quantifiable financial losses such as medical expenses and loss of earnings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
How is loss of earnings calculated?
Calculated using multiplicand (net annual loss) and multiplier (period of future loss adjusted by discount rate).
26
What does the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 allow to be claimed and who claims it?
Allows deceased estate to claim for losses incurred between injury and death, including pain and suffering, property damage, and funeral expenses.
27
What statute governs liability for visitors?
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
28
What is the common duty of care for visitors
Occupiers must take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited/permitted.
29
Can warnings discharge duty?
Can exclude liability provided reasonable steps were taken to bring the notice to the visitor's attention before the tort and the wording covers the loss
30
What is the act that covers trespassers?
Occupiers Liability Act 1984
31
Where does a duty exist to trespassers?
1. Occupier is aware of danger or has reasonable grounds to believe it exists 2. Occupier knows or has reasonable grounds to believe trespasser is or may come into vicinity of the danger 3. Risk is one against which the occupier may reasonably be expected to offer some protection
32
What constitutes a breach of the duty to trespassers?
Duty is to take reasonable care to prevent injury from the danger.
33
What can and can't be claimed in damages for a breach of duty to tresspassers?
Duty is only owed for personal injury or death NOT damage to trespasser's property
34
Who can sue under a claim in contract?
Generally only the direct buyer can sue direct seller due to privity of contract.
35
In common law negligence who is a manufacturer?
Anyone who works on a product before it reaches the consumer
36
Can suppliers be sued as manufacturers in common law negligence?
Yes if they ought to inspect, test products or know of defect
37
Who can make a claim in common law negligence for products?
Consumers are the ultimate users so it includes anyone the manufacturer should foresee as likely to be injured by negligence
38
Who has the burden of proof for product liability in common law negligence
Claimant has burden of proof to prove that the defect was present when the product left the factory
39
When can a breach be inferred in product liability?
Court can infer a breach of duty from the facts that something must have gone wrong further up the manufacturing chain
40
How can a breach that is inferred be rebutted in product liability?
This can be rebutted by manufacturer to show defect was due to claimant's own misuse of product
41
Who can sue under Consumer Protection Act 1987? And does claimant need to be foreseeable victim?
Anyone can sue who has suffered damage caused by a defect in the product - claimant doesn't need to be buyer or foreseeable victim.
42
Difference between who can sue in negligence and under CPA?
Under CPA the claimant doesn't need to be a foreseeable victim
43
Who can be sued under CPA?
* Producer (manufacturer) * Own brander - someone who puts their name on the product * Importer * Forgetful supplier (Not independent contractor installing a product)
44
Can suppliers be a defendant under CPA?
Only if they fail to identify producer, own brander or importer
45
Difference between defendants in negligence and under CPA?
Negligence has wider potential defendants as can include repairers and installers but CPA has specific categories of liable parties (producer, own-brander, importer, limited supplier liability)
46
What damage can be recovered under CPA?
* Unlimited for death and personal injury * Damage to private property must exceed £275 * Damage to business property and economic loss is excluded
47
What constitutes a defect under CPA?
Product is defective if its safety is not what persons generally are entitled to expect.
48
Difference between what losses can be claimed in negligence and under CPA?
Losses in negligence must be foreseeable but no requirement under CPA
49
What is the developmental risks (state of the art defence) under CPA?
Defendant can prove the defect couldn't have been discovered given the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time, judged against highest standards worldwide
50
What is Private Nuisance
An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it
51
Who are claimants in Private Nuisance
Anyone with the right to exclusive possession of the land can bring a claim, including renters.
52
Types of interference in Private Nuisance
1) Encroachment on neighbour's land e.g. tree roots 2) Indirect physical injury e.g. toxic fumes 3) Interference with quiet enjoyment e.g. smell, dust, vibration, noise, right to light
53
Can loss of view or interruption to TV reception be an interference in private nuisance?
No as interference must be with 'ordinary comfort'
54
Factors to decide unlawfulness of interference
1. Duration and frequency 2. Excessiveness of conduct 3. Character of neighbourhood 4. Public benefit 5. Malice 6. Abnormal sensitivity.
55
Who is liable for private nuisance?
* Creator of the nuisance (even if land is occupied by someone else) * Occupier * Landlord isn't generally liable unless they authorised it, it existed at the start of the letter or had a right to repair and failed
56
Are independent contractors liable for private nuisance?
Yes if their nature of work carried a special danger of the nuisance being created
57
Is a landlord liable under private nuisance?
Generally not liable unless they authorised it, it existed at start of letting or had promised / had a right to repair and failed
58
Are trespassers liable under private nuisance?
Liable if they continued the nuisance or haven't taken reasonable steps to end it once aware.
59
How is the damage valued for quiet enjoyment of land
Personal discomfort is valued by looking at loss of amenity value of land.
60
Can damage to personal property be claimed under private nuisance?
It is generally outside the scope of private nuisance but may be allowed if losses flow as a consequence of personal discomfort caused by nuisance
61
Can consequential losses be included for claim under private nuisance
Yes if it is flowing from recoverable damage are recoverable, e.g., loss of profits if a nuisance prevents a business from operating normally.
62
Can personal injury be claimed under private nuisance or public nuisance?
Not recoverable under private nuisance - more appropriate is a negligence claim in personal injury. Can be recovered under public nuisance
63
What is the test for reasonable foreseeability for private nuisance?
Liability doesn't depend on defendant's fault but on whether use of land involved a foreseeable risk.
64
What is public nuisance
An act/omission that endangers the life, health, property, or comfort of the public.
65
Key difference from private nuisance
Affected class must have suffered particular harm over and above that suffered by the public at large.
66
What does *Rylands v Fletcher* cover?
Covers situations where there is an escape of something dangerous in the course of non-natural use of land.
67
What has to be proven for liability under Rylands v Fletcher
There is strict liability under Rylands v Fletcher.
68
Elements of the tort of Ryland v Fletcher
1) Defendant brings onto their land for own purposes something likely to do mischief 2) It escapes 3) Represents a non-natural use of the land. 4) Causes foreseeable damage
69
Are consequential damages e.g. loss of profit recoverable under Rylands v Fletcher?
No - only: * Physical damage * Personal discomfort
70
What is the prescription defence in nuisance cases?
Continuing nuisance has existed for at least 20 years against the claimant.
71
What is the 'Act of God or nature' defence in nuisance?
The defendant is not liable unless they adopted or continued the nuisance.
72
What does necessity mean in the context of nuisance defences?
Actions were reasonable due to immediate danger to life, limb, or property
73
Ineffective defences for private nuisance
**Claimant 'came to the nuisance'** - not a defence if they moved to the nuisance e.g. buying the house next door Public benefit **Contributory actions of others** - not a defence if nuisance is a result of actions by multiple people **Planning permission** - does not legitimate a nuisance
74
Specific defences for *Rylands v Fletcher*
* Escape caused by unforeseeable act of a stranger * Escape caused by 'act of God' which couldn't be reasonably foreseen * Statutory authority * Consent * Contributory negligence.
75
Can you claim for loss of earnings capacity if you are unable to work in the future?
No - you can only claim if you are able to work It does not apply where the claimant is totally unable to work at all, as that situation concerns future loss of earnings, not capacity. Loss of earning capacity will apply if the claimant was currently still working but would suffer a disadvantage on the job market in the future
76
A claimant was injured whilst on a fairground ride (known as the ‘big dipper’ ride) in a newly built theme park owned and run by the defendant. The theme park had just been opened to the general public and the claimant went along as the guest of the defendant’s manager. The defendant accepts that the theme park would meet the test for being ‘Premises’ and the claimant would be ‘a Visitor’ under the relevant law. Which statement best describes the other requirements which the claimant must establish in order to bring a claim in occupiers’ liability? C) The claimant must prove that the defendant is an occupier and that the theme park was not reasonably safe. E) The claimant must prove that the defendant is an occupier and that the injuries were as a result of the state of the big dipper ride.
E is correct - Occupiers Liability Act requires claimaint to prove that: 1) Theme park would meet test for being 'Premises' 2) Claimant is visitor & defendant is occupier 3) Injuries were as a result of the state of the big dipper ride Requirement is that injuries must be as a result of the state of the ride not just something that happened on sight & claimant doesn't need to prove the whole of the theme park was not reasonably safe The duty is directed towards the visitor's reasonable safety rather than towards safety of premises
77
A man invites his aunt to his house for dinner. The man is a retired carpet fitter and he has recently finished fitting a new carpet in his dining room. He is also renovating his hallway and he has put a large notice on his front door which states: “No liability is accepted for any personal injury or property damage suffered by visitors to my house”. His aunt sees the notice when she arrives at his house. Whilst they are having dinner, the aunt gets up from the dining table to go to the bathroom. Unfortunately, when the man was fitting the new carpet, he carelessly failed to secure it properly to the floorboards. As a result, his aunt loses her footing and falls to the floor. She breaks her wrist and damages her watch in the accident. If the aunt instructs a solicitor in relation to this matter, what advice should the solicitor give the aunt regarding the legal effect of the notice on the man’s front door? A) The notice is a legally effective exclusion notice in relation to her damaged watch. However, the notice’s attempt to exclude liability for personal injury is void. B) The notice is a legally effective exclusion notice in relation to her damaged watch. However, the notice’s attempt to exclude liability for personal injury is void.
Option A is correct because the notice satisfies the two common law requirements for a legally effective exclusion notice. 1) Reasonable steps were taken by the man to bring the exclusion notice to the aunt’s attention before the tort was committed. The notice was large and was on the front door of his house. 2) The harm suffered by the aunt (personal injury and property damage) is covered by the wording of the notice. The statutory controls under UCTA 1977 and the CRA 2015 **do not apply to this notice because the man is not a business occupier or a trader**. He is a private occupier and he is, therefore, **legally entitled to exclude liability** in relation to any harm suffered by visitors to his premises. Option B is wrong because, as a private occupier, the man is entitled to exclude liability in relation to any harm (including personal injury and damage to property).
78
If something seeps into the ground over a period of 6 months, can a claim in Rylands v Fletcher be bought?
No - as it needs to be **one off escape**
79
Can an employer rely on a breach of statutory health and safety regulation as the basis of a claim for breach of statutory duty?
No but they can rely on it to prove breach of employer's duty in negligence
80
An architect is pursued in negligence for the collapse of a summer house they built. The architect had adopted a novel approach to the build and argues that other up to date architects would have done the same. **Which of the following best reflects the approach the courts will take to determine whether the architect had breached their duty of care in negligence?** a) The courts will consider what a body of reasonably competent architects would have done in the circumstances and if a sufficiently large number would have followed the same approach, there would be no breach. b) The courts will consider what a body of reasonably competent architects charged with the same task would have done by relying on expert evidence supplied. d) The courts will consider what a body of reasonably competent architects would have done and there would be no breach as long as the court concludes it would not be irresponsible for an architect to have adopted the same method.
Option D is the correct answer. This combines the approach taken in Bolam and Bolitho. * *Bolam* – as long as a defendant’s actions are supported by a reasonable body of professional opinion, they shouldn’t be judged to be negligent * *Bolitho* – even a body of opinion exists, the court may reject it if the claimant can demonstrate the opinion isn’t capable of logical analysis (e.g. unreasonable or irresponsible) A&B ignores impact of Bolitho
81
A solicitor is instructed by 5 different defendants to a negligence claim arising from a road traffic collision. In each case, the defendant is alleged to be responsible for injuries to pedestrians. In relation to the reasonable person test, which of the following defendants is most likely to escape liability? A) An 85 year old with poor eyesight and slow reflexes B) A driver diagnosed with severe arthritis in his hands and feet C) A Formula 1 racing champion D) A driver unable to concentrate as a result of an unexpected drop in their blood sugar level E) A newly qualified driver with their girlfriend about to give birth in the back seat.
Option D is the correct answer. If the driver was **unaware of the disabling event**, they would not be deemed to have fallen below the standard of care of the reasonable person (*Mansfield v Weetabix – Roberts v Ramsbottom*). Option A is wrong because the reasonable person test is objective and does not take into account the individual characteristics of the defendant (Glasgow Corporation v Muir). Option B is wrong because the reasonable person test is objective and does not take into account the individual characteristics of the defendant (Glasgow Corporation v Muir). Option C is wrong because if anything a Formula 1 racing driver could potentially be considered as someone holding themselves out with a expert skills and would be judged by reference to that standard (Bolam). Option E is wrong because the standard of care is not lowered by reference to experience (Nettleship v Weston) although the emergency situation may be one of the factors the courts will consider when determining the standard of care (Watts v Hertfordshire).
82
Will an amount received for lost income be reduced by the amount received for state benefits?
Yes - The claim for past lost income is categorised as an item of special damages. The claimant is entitled to the amount of income lost but any state benefits received will be deducted under the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997
83
When will the defence of illegality be applicable?
Illegality requires a close connection between the claimant’s wrongdoing and their loss so that the damage arises directly out of the illegal activity in such a way that it would be contrary to public policy to allow the claimant a remedy E.g. driving getaway car