The Law Of Tort

Define Tort.

A wrongful act in civil law, other than a breach of contract, that gives rise to a claim in damages.

1 of 23

When may actions in tort arise?

When there is not contractual relationship between the parties .

2 of 23

Give 4 examples.

Trespass, defamation, nuisance, negligence

3 of 23

How are duties in tort different to duties in contract?

contract: duties are set out in contract and parties voluntarily agree to enter and owe each other.
Tort: duties owed are not in any contract but set in law.

4 of 23

What is the purpose of law in tort?

:to provide remedy to the injured party for damages caused by the breach to any duties.

5 of 23

Define Negligence.

:the unintentional breach by one party of a legal duty to take care that causes loss or damage to the injured party.

6 of 23

What four elements must the plaintiff prove and to what extent?

1) Duty: that defendant owes a duty of care
2) Breach: that the defended breached the DOC.
3) Causation: that breach caused damage
4) Remote: that damages suffered are not too remote
PROVE ON A BALANCE OF PROBABILITES.

7 of 23

Explain the legal duty of care.

:a duty of care to ensure that the plaintiff does not come to any harm .

8 of 23

What case devised the "neighbour principle"?

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

9 of 23

How is the neighbour principal used?

:to determine in what situations a defendant owes a legal duty of care to the injured party.

10 of 23

What happend in the Donoghue and Stevenson (1932) case?

Mrs Donoghue and her friend went to cafe. Friend bought Mrs D a ginger beer. Mrs D drank some ginger beer then poured rest into glass. Found a decomposed snail in bottom of bottle. She did not pay so could not claim of cafe, instead claimed from company f

11 of 23

How did Lord Atkins describe the "neighbour principle"?

"you must take responsible care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be liable to injure your neighbour"

12 of 23

Why was the "neighbour principle" an issue for courts?

Courts took a very broad definition of who could be a neighbour. Any plaintiff could fall into definition and be owed a duty of care. Courts criticised for instead of deciding is Duty of care was owed, deciding how much.

13 of 23

What did this issue cause?

The Modern Day Test

14 of 23

What was the Modern Day Test?

Developed by Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman (1990)
House of Lords ( Supreme Court) indentified 3 factors for court when deciding if duty of care owed by defendant.

15 of 23

What is the first stage of the test?

Was it reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's actions would cause harm?

16 of 23

What is the second stage of the test?

Is there sufficient proximity between the plaintiff and defendant?
Are parties geographically close? Related? Contract relationship?

17 of 23

Give an example of a case where the second stage in the case was important?

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (No2) (1999)
Court held there was sufficient proximity between the police and police informer. Police briefcase stolen and informer name stolen. Vandals harassed and threatened her in her own home. Court he

18 of 23

What is the third stage in the test?

Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant?
Additional stage allows judges to take into account special requirements and consider impact of decision on public policy.

19 of 23

Give an example of a case of negligence where public policy had to be considered.

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1988)
Plaintiff brought claim to police for negligence stating if they carried out investigation more carefully, Yorkshire Ripper would have been caught sooner and prevented murders.
House of Lords held against P

20 of 23

How would the court determine if the duty of care was breached?

1) What is the general standard of care that the defendant must apply?
2) Did the defendant meet the "reasonable" standard of care required?
3) Vicarious Liability

21 of 23

What is the general standard of care that the defendant must apply?

Defendant is expected to apply a certain minimum standard that is ascertained by application of "reasonable man test"

22 of 23

What was the "reasonable man test" and what case was it in relation to?

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856)
"the omission to do something which a reasonable man ... would do... or doing something that a prudent and reasonable man would not do..."

23 of 23

Get Revising

The Law Of Tort

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources: