TORT REVISION BASICS
- Created by: EmilieVincent
- Created on: 08-05-18 21:05
TORT BASICS REVISION NOTES
Negligence
DUTY OF CARE-
Neighbour principle- Donoghue v Stevenson
Caparo v Dickman three-part test:
1. Reasonably foreseeable.
2. Proximity.
a. Space and Time- Bourhill v Young
b. Relationship- Mclaughlin v O’Brien
3. It must be fair, just and reasonable as to whether a duty of care is to be imposed. (Policy reasons)
BREACH-
Reasonable man- Blyth v Birmingham Water Works
Factors:
Learners- Nettleship v Weston
Young people- Mullins v Richards
Professionals- Wilsher v Essex
Medical Professionals- Bolam/ Bolitho
Objective Test:
1. Likelihood of harm- Bolton v Stone
2. Seriousness of harm- Paris v Stepney
3. Cost of prevention- Latimer v AEC
4. Utility of defendant’s action- Watt v Hertfordshire
CAUSATION-
Causation in Fact-
· ‘But for test’- Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital
· Multiple injuries- Performance Cars v Abraham
Causation in Law-
· Novus actus interveniens
o Act of third party WILL break chain of causation- Home Office v Dorset Yacht
o Reasonable/ unreasonable actions of the victim- Roberts/ Williams
o Poor/ palpably wrong medical treatment- Smith/ Jordan
o Medical Complications- Cheshire
REMOTENESS-
Type of harm- Wagon Mound no.2
Extent of harm- Hughes v Lord Advocate
Thin skull rule- Smith v Leech Brain
Psychiatric harm
· Recognised medical illness
· Caused indirectly
PRIMARY VICTIMS
· Directly involved in accident
o Must be in range of physical injury- Dulieu v White
o Unaided senses- Hambrook v Stokes
o Reasonably foreseeable- Bourhill v Young
o Individual characteristics of the claimant- Page v Smith
· Rescuers
o Must be actively involved- White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
o Cannot be bystander- McFarlane v EE Caledonia
o Must be at risk of physical injury- Chadwick v British Railways Board
o Professional rescuer- going beyond what is expected of the reasonable rescuer- Hale v London Underground Ltd
SECONDARY VICTIMS
· Alcock test:
1. Close tie of love and affection- McLaughlin v O’Brien
2. In immediate aftermath- Jaenish v Coffey
3. Perceived by own unaided senses
· Sudden shock, not slow- Sion v Hampstead Health Authority
· Reasonable ‘fortitude and phlegm’
· A Primary Victim owes no duty of care to a Secondary Victim- Greatorex v Greatorex 2000
Medical Negligence
· Owe a duty of care to anyone arriving in casualty- Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
· Acting in accordance with proper practice- Bolam
· Risks and benefits of a medical practice- Bolitho
· State of medical knowledge at time of events- Roe v Minister of Health
Employers Liability
· Employers liability covers liability of employers TO their employees.
· Employers bound to take reasonable care to not subject those employed to unnecessary risk- Harris v Brights Asphalt Contractors
· Employers liability test common law- Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co.…
Comments
Report