GoConqr has a new look! Let us know what you think.

Sign up free

Flashcards

Tort

joseph.harrison8 English 39 cards

Cards in this deck (39)

  1. 1What is included in the 3 part test for duty of care?- Was the harm or damage reasonably foreseeable?
    - Was there proximity between the two parties
    - Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care?
  2. 2Duty of Care - Case Studies- Kent v Griffiths
    - Bourhill v Young
    - Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
  3. 3Kent v GriffithsAmbulance failed to arrive within a reasonable time
  4. 4Bourhill v YoungNo proximity as the claimant was 20 yards away from the incident, and did not see it occur
  5. 5Hill v Chief Constable of West YorkshirePolice were not responsible for the murder of the daughter as there was no reason to believe she was particularly at risk.
  6. 6Duty of Care Applied QuestionsIs it reasonably foreseeable to the reasonable man that (apply)? Was the relationship/proximity in time and space between (apply) sufficiently close? were public services involves; was it fair just and reasonable?
  7. 7Reasonable Man Case Studies- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks
    - Nettleship v Weston
    - Mullins v Richards
    - The Bolam Principle
  8. 8Blyth v Birmingham WaterworksReasonable man theory was established in this case.
  9. 9Nettleship v WestonDoes not allow for inexperience, where the learner driver was judged against the standard of a reasonably competent driver
  10. 10Mullins v RichardsChild can be judged against the reasonable child of their own age.
  11. 11The Bolam PrincipleSkilled professionals are expected to perform at the standard of a competent professional in their chosen field
  12. 12Risk Factors Case Studies- Bolton v Stone
    - Latimer v AEC
    - Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
    - Paris v Stepney B.C
  13. 13What are the different risk factors?- The size of the risk, affects the amount of care needed to be taken.
    - Practical precautions
    - Were there any benefits to taking the risk?
    - Any special characteristics of the claimant?
  14. 14Bolton v StoneDeclared that a cricket ground was not in breach of their duty of care when a cricket ball travelled 100 yards, clearing a 17 foot fence and striking a woman, as necessary precautions had been taken and it had only happened 6 times in 30 years.
  15. 15Latimer v AECNo breach of duty of care when the claimant slipped on a wet floor, as warning signs had been placed around the area and practical precautions had been taken.
  16. 16Watt v Hertfordshire County CouncilFirefighters were injured when saving the woman. It was deemed reasonable that the benefits of saving the woman were greater than the risks of injuring the firefighters.
  17. 17Paris v StepneyClaimant was blind in one eye, and was not provided with goggles and he got hit in his good eye, making him fully blind. Employer breached their duty of care as they did not take extra reasonable precautions.
  18. 18Causation in Damage Case Studies- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
    - Smith v Littlewoods
  19. 19What is considered when proving causation?- 'but for?' the breach of duty of care
    - An intervening act
  20. 20Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital'but for' the breach of duty of care the man have died regardless any attempt made to save him, so the hospital was not found to be liable.
  21. 21Smith v LittlewoodsAlthough the defendants had only locked the cinema, and not left it fully secured, they were not deemed to be liable for the fire damage on the neighbouring building as the vandals were the intervening act and the owners did not realise there had been previous attempts in the area.
  22. 22What does remoteness of damage look at?- Whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable
    - Considers the thin skull rule
    - Whether the type of damage was foreseeable even if the way it happened was not
  23. 23Remoteness of Damage Case Studies- The Wagon Mound
    - Smith and Leech Brain and Co
    - Hughes v Lord Advocate
  24. 24The Wagon MoundFuel oil was negligently spilt, and caused a wharf to burn down. However, as this happened a couple of days later as a consequence of welding ship repairs causing the oil to catch fire, it was deemed too remote and not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
  25. 25Smith and Leech Brain and CoVictim was burnt on the lip, burn was deemed to be a foreseeable consequence and that it caused cancer was regarded as a requirement to take your victim as you find them. The defendant was liable for the death.
  26. 26Hughes v Lord AdvocateThe burns were foreseeable even if the explosion was not, so the defendants were held liable for the harm.
  27. 27What must the claimant prove in Res Ispa Loquitur?- Defendant was in control of the situation that caused the injury
    - That the injury was more likely than not to have been caused by negligence
    - That there is no other explanation for the damage/harm.
    - Once the defendants can prove these 3 things, the burden of proof shifts the to the defendant who must prove they were not negligent.
  28. 28Res Ispa Loquitur Case Studies- Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
  29. 29Scott v London and St Katherine DocksThe defendant was in control of the sugar factory, it was more likely that not caused by negligence as the warehouse holes weren't secured, and there was no other explanation for the claimant being hit by the sugar.
  30. 30Procedure to Court (Part 1)Alternative despite resolution as it is cheaper than court and save the parties money, the next stage is to undertake reaction protocols, which is a letter sent to the defendant outlining the reasons for the claims, this will include any injuries and damages.
  31. 31Procedure to Court (Part 2)The defendant has 3 months to investigate the claims and reply, accepting or denying liability. If liability is denied the case goes to court. (Apply case to court and track). Claimant then issues a claim by completing a N1 form.
  32. 32Procedure to Court (Part 3)Defendant can either admit the claim and pay full amount, or send a N9 form, or a written defence to the claim. If the defendant doesn't respond, the claimant wins by default. The case is the allocated to the appropriate track (Apply).
  33. 33Small Claims TrackProperty damage up to £10,000
    Personal Injury up to £1,000
  34. 34Fast TrackClaims up to £25,000
  35. 35Multi TrackCases over £25,000
  36. 36Why are damages paid?To put the claimant in the position they were in before. They are expected to mitigate their losses, and not profit from the award, so the losses must be kept to a reasonable level.
  37. 37What are special damages?Pecuniary, easy to calculate, and include all itemised costs up to the date of the trial. Special damages are defined as 'sum certain; before the trial', such as travel costs to hospital, repairs to buildings, homes, and vehicles.
  38. 38What are general damages?All costs which cannot be given an exact monetary value, either because they are costs that have not yet been incurred, or because it is for pain and suffering.
  39. 39How do the courts ensure fairness when awarding damages?They use the multiplier and multiplicand, which maintains a constant approach in all cases.w

Information

Description
Flashcards on Tort, created by joseph.harrison8 on 25/04/2016.
Views
2
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?