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

Sign up free

Flashcards

Tort Cases

Sharleen Nijjar English 38 cards

Cards in this deck (38)

  1. 1Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562established a general test.
    ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question’ (Lord Atkin, ibid, at 580).
  2. 2Dorset Yacht v Home Office [1970] AC 1004arguably developed a two-stage test.
  3. 3Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728.Lord Wilberforce explicitly advocated a two-stage test
  4. 4Caparo v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 6053 stage test
    The first stage of the test was flexible, and open to manipulation by the courts.
    Attorney General v Hartwell [2004] 1 WLR 1273
    Relevant factors in considering ‘proximity’ included:
    I. The relationship between D and C (Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344; Everett v Comojo Ltd UK [2011] EWCA Civ 13);
    II. Whether D ‘assumed responsibility’ (Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36);
    III. The relevant type of harm (Vowles v Evans [2003] 1 WLR 1607) (it was difficult to establish proximity in relation to types of harm that judges are slow to recognise as being worthy of compensation, such as pure economic loss);
    IV. Whether C was part of a class of people who were, or could have been, affected by the relevant harm, and, if so, the size of the class.
    The third stage of the duty of care test required the court to examine whether it is ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose a duty of care upon the defendant. The courts tend to discuss policy overtly at this stage.
    What is ‘fair, just and reasonable’ and ‘sufficiently proximate’ involves a number of factors, including:
    Whether the co
  5. 5Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4-
  6. 6James-Bowen v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 40“The Supreme Court has held in James-Bowen & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2018] UKSC 40 that the Commissioner owed no duty to protect the economic and reputational interests of officers whose alleged misconduct formed the subject of a civil claim, which the Commissioner had settled.”
  7. 7Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, 59, per Lord Keith.Claim failed because the HOL said there was no duty of care for the police to catch criminals but when they made that claim it was just a general claim
  8. 8Osman v UK (2000) 29 EHRR 245Teacher became obsessed with a student and killed the student's father. They had reported the obsession to the police prior to the murder of the father and sued the police for negligence.
    For policy reasons the courts said it is not okay for the police to be owed a duty of care because then everyone would sue the police.
  9. 9Z v UK (2001) 34 EHRR 97The claimants appealed at the European Court of Human Rights because at that point it became a human rights case and they took the UK to court so they became the defendant
    Said that the claimants had not had a fair trial in England and so their right to a fair trial had been violated and so the claimants must receive compensation for that
    Appears like they thought that the UK courts had acknowledged the fault of the police but that they were given some form of immunity which under article 6 they said that the claimant had not received their right to a fair trial.
    English judges said they had a hard time understanding how they violated the right to fair trial
    They became afraid to say there was no duty of care for other cases because they didn’t want to go to the European Court of Human Rights again
    - said that they had misunderstood the previous case and that there actually hadn’t been a violation of article 6 in the Osman case.
  10. 10X v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 3 WLR 152THIS CASE WAS WHAT REVERSED THE Z v UK (2001) 34 EHRR 97 DECISION THAT HAD SAID THE COURT HAD VIOLATED ARTICLE 6 WHICH STATES THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL
    - Tried to argue that their local counsel failed to protect them from child abuse. Claim failed so they took it to the European Court of Human Rights
  11. 11Barrett v London Borough of Enfield [1999] 3 WLR 79“Barrett was taken into care at 10 months old, until he was 17 years old
    He claimed that the council had treated him negligently, inter alia, by moving him between 6 different foster homes, resulting in significant mental injury”
    Issue
    Could the council owe such a duty
    Decision
    Arguable upon evidence
    Reasoning
    There is no common law duty for a council to take take when taking a child into care
    There was a duty which was also breached to take care of a child in care, this would need to be debated on the facts”
  12. 12Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2The Supreme Court has taken the view that a development of the law of negligence is not necessary to comply with the rights guaranteed by articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, since such rights can be vindicated by a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998.
    Human rights are fundamental rights and therefore if tort law is not consistent with human rights it needs to change…
    Human rights is one area of law and tort and negligence law are different. ????
    Ended up saying that tort law is a separate area from criminal law
  13. 13Michael and others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police and another”Woman called 999 and got transferred to the wrong police company. Told the caller that she would transfer the details of the call to the other police force and they would call her back and deal with the situation. The woman who called had been attacked by her partner who had seen her with another dude. He had bitten her ear and took the guy with him and threatened to come back and attack her. The operator didn’t hear the bit about the partner threatening to come back and kill her. When the information was passed on by the police force they didn’t receive all of the information about the death threat so the police didn’t prioritize it as it should have been. By the time the police got to her, her partner had already killed her
    -Claim for violation of article 2 which is the right to life
    Supreme court struck out the negligence claim because they said the police do not owe a duty of. Care to protect people from criminals
    SC said there was a violation to article 2 because they said the police should have known that the police should have known the risk of the individual being killed.
  14. 14X v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 3 WLR 152-
  15. 15Barrett v London Borough of Enfield [1999] 3 WLR 79-
  16. 16JD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] 2 AC 373-
  17. 17Lawrence v Pembrokeshire CC [2007] EWCA Civ 446-
  18. 18Poole BC v GN [2019] UKSC 25-
  19. 19Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53-
  20. 20Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria [1997] QB 464-
  21. 21Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire [2008] UKHL 50-
  22. 22Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2008]-
  23. 23Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4-
  24. 24Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] 2 All ER 66-
  25. 25Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36 - ambulance service-
  26. 26Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2 – police-
  27. 27Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205, 224, per Greer LJ-
  28. 28Miller v Jackson [1977] 1 QB 966-
  29. 29Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691-
  30. 30Roe v Minister of Health [1954] 2 QB 66-
  31. 31Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850-
  32. 32Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367-
  33. 33Harris v Perry [2008] EWCA Civ 907-
  34. 34Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643-
  35. 35Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Miller Steamship Co Pty Ltd, The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617-
  36. 36Watt v Hertfordshire County Council [1954] 1 WLR 835-
  37. 37The Scout Association v Barnes [2010] EWCA Civ 1476-
  38. 38Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1997] 4 All ER 771-

Information

Description
Flashcards on Tort Cases, created by Sharleen Nijjar on 07/02/2020.
Created by
Sharleen Nijjar
Views
0
Rating

Feedback

What is it about?

What do you think of the new look?

How do you like it?