A collection of revision notes for the tort module on the GDL at the University of Law.
The document includes 11 flowcharts and 16 pages of key authorities from statute and case law on the following topics:
- trespass to the person
- negligence
- limited duty situations in negligence
- employ...
Flowcharts
Trespass to the Person
Negligence
Limited Duty Situations
Employer’s Liability in Negligence
Employer’s Vicarious Liability
Occupiers’ Liability to Visitors
Occupiers’ Liability to Others
Product Liability in Negligence
Product Liability under the CPA
Private Nuisance
Trespass to Land
Key Authorities
Trespass to the Person
Negligence
Limited Duty Situations
Employer’s Liability
Occupiers’ Liability
Liability for Defective Products
Torts to Land
Remedies
All notes correct and Distinction worthy as of
academic year 2019/20
, TRESPASS TO THE PERSON
Was the act by the defendant intentional?
If not, then the claimant should use the tort of negligence – Letana v Cooper
Was there application of unlawful force?
BATTERY
The intentional direct application of unlawful
force to another person
If not, did the claimant apprehend an infliction of unlawful force?
ASSAULT INFLICTION OF MENTAL SHOCK
An intentional act by the defendant which An intention to cause shock, which leads to the
causes another personal to reasonably claimant suffering some damage
apprehend the immediate infliction of a – Wilkinson v Downton
battery on him
Apply the Rhodes v OPO test
Defendant used words or conduct for which
there is no justification
With intention to cause severe emotional or
mental distress
From which the claimant suffers physical harm
or a recognised psychiatric illness
Are there any defences available?
CONSENT SELF-DEFENCE NECESSITY
Apply Chatterton v Gerson test: Apply Cockcroft v Smith test: Defence if a situation existed in
Consent is real once a person has The force used must be in self- which the defendant’s actions
been informed in broad terms of defence not retaliation, were necessary and reasonable in
what is to follow, but must not be reasonable, and in proportion to the circumstances to save life or
induced by misrepresentation the threat prevent deterioration in health
, NEGLIGENCE
Did the defendant owe the claimant a duty of care?
ESTABLISHED DUTY NOVEL DUTY
There are many situations in which a duty of Apply the Caparo Industries v Dickman test:
care has already been established e.g. road Reasonable foresight of harm
users to others, doctors to patients, employer to Sufficient proximity of relationship
employee, special relationships, dangerous Fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of
situations care
Was that duty of care breached?
Apply the Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks test:
The standard the defendant must reach is that of a reasonable person
This is an objective test – Glasgow Corp v Muir
Did the breach of duty cause the damage suffered?
Can factual causation be proved?
BASIC CAUSATION MATERIAL CONTRIBUTION
Apply the Barnett ‘but for’ test: In a multiple cause case, a claimant may show
But for the defendant’s breach of duty, would the defendant materially contributed to damage
the harm to the claimant have occurred? – Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
Was there an intervening act?
ACT BY A THIRD PARTY ACT BY THE CLAIMANT
Apply the test: Were the claimant’s actions reasonable?
Was the intervening act one which the – Wieland v Cyril Lord Carpets
defendant ought to have foreseen as a likely Were the claimant’s actions unreasonable?
consequence of their negligence? – McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts
Was the damage too remote?
GENERAL RULE EXCEPTIONS
Apply the Wagon Mound test: ‘Similar in type’ rule: only the type of harm must
Was the damage of a kind that a reasonable be foreseeable – Hughes v Lord Advocate
person would have foreseen? ‘Egg-shell skull’ rule: take your victim as you find
them – Robinson v Post Office
Are there any defences available?
VOLUNTARY ASSUMPTION ILLEGALITY CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
Apply Nettleship v Weston test: Apply Pitts v Hunt test: Partial defence if:
Claimant had full knowledge of A claim must fail when the Claimant was careless i.e. failed to
nature and extent of risk character of the enterprise is such take reasonable care for their
Claimant willingly consented to that it is impossible to determine safety, and this contributed to the
accept the risk an appropriate standard of care damage suffered
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ulawemily. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.68. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
