Class notes

Tort Law Notes and Answer Structure UOL LLB (No plagiarism or AI)

0 purchase

Course
Tort (LA2001)

Institution
Birkbeck, University Of London (BBK)

These are Tort Law notes and answer structures that I made myself for the UOL LLB exams. They are free from plagiarism and AI like ChatGPT.

[Show more]

Preview 4 out of 35 pages

View example

Uploaded on May 31, 2023
Number of pages 35
Written in 2022/2023
Type Class notes
Professor(s) Paula giliker
Contains All classes

tort law
answer structure
law notes
law exam
uol llb
negligence
duty of care
exam

Institution
Birkbeck, University of London (BBK)
Education Unknown
Course
Tort (LA2001)

$15.49

Add to cart

Add to wishlist

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Tort Law Answer Structure (No plagiarism or AI)

1. Negligence Problem Questions

In Lochgelly Iron v McMullan (1934), Lord Wright confirmed that a claimant

has to prove four elements: a duty of care, a breach of the duty, causation, and

that the damage is not too remote.

❖ Is a duty of care owed? (For psychiatric injury/Pure Economic Loss/public

bodies/omissions/3rd party wrongdoing, see charts. If not any of those,

ordinary DOC will apply)

It was decided in Caparo v Dickman (1990) that a legal duty will be owed

where it has already been determined that the claimant and defendant have a

particular relationship which gives rise to an established legal duty. To justify

the imposition of a legal duty when the relationship between the parties is

novel, the requirements of foreseeability, proximity and just, fair and

reasonable have to be satisfied. However, in Robinson v Chief Constable of

West Yorkshire Police (2018), the Supreme Court made it clear that the

three-stage test was not to be used in every situation when determining duty,

but that precedents which were already in place should be taken into account.

❖ Has the duty been breached?

A duty must then have been breached after it has been imposed. When the

defendant's conduct falls below a reasonable standard, the duty is breached.

Q: Did D’s conduct fall below the relevant std of care?

a) if D was performing an ordinary (non-skilled act) – apply Reasonable Man

standard

b) if D was a professional/exercising special skills – apply professional std. of

care

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

, c) special cases (learner driver, children, sports etc. – use specific decisions)

In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856), a breach is

established when the defendant failed to behave in a way following the

standard of a reasonable person. It was held in Glasgow Corporation v Muir

(1943) that the reasonable standard will change depending on the

circumstances of the case. According to Paris v. Stepney BC (1951), the

legal standard is typically to exercise the amount of care that is reasonable

under the circumstances.

❖ Did the breach cause the injury?

Factual causation: Typically, the "but for" test is used to determine

causation based on the balance of probabilities (Cork v. Kirby Maclean (1952).

In Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington HMC (1969), it was determined that the

carelessness of the defendant could not be regarded as the factual cause of

the claimant's injury or death if it would have happened regardless.

Legal causation: This is satisfied by proving that the claimant’s injury is not

too remote as a consequence of the defendant’s negligent act. Accordingly,

the injury must have been of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable (Wagon

Mound No. 1 (1961)) and not too remote.

❖ Was the injury too remote?

Test of remoteness (Wagon Mound No. 1 (1961))

❖ Does the D have a valid defence?

▪ Has the claimant voluntarily assumed the risk of injury?

▪ Is the injury one for which liability can be excluded or limited?

▪ Is the claim substantially based on an illegal act by the claimant?

▪ Has the claimant contributed to his injury through his own negligence?

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

, 2. General Defences

❖ Contributory negligence

Contributory negligence is now a partial defence as a result of The Law

Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. According to Fookes v Slaytor

(1978), three elements have to be established before damages can be reduced

to reflect the claimant’s contribution to their injury through their negligence.

First, the injury has to result from the claimant exposing himself to a

particular risk. The second is that his negligence contributed to the injury, and

the third one is that the claimant is the one at fault.

Despite the difficulty in determining the precise scope of the contribution, a

reduction will be made (Capps v Miller (1989)).

❖ Voluntary assumption of risk

Consent in the context of the tort of negligence is an agreement to run the

risk of the defendant's negligence. It is an absolute defence that can be either

express or implied.

According to Nettleship v Watson (1971), there has to be informed consent

regarding the type of risk of negligent injury in order to justify denying recovery.

It has to be proven that the claimant had full knowledge of the risk they were

taking, and they were willing to accept it. Without an express agreement, one can

be implied through deliberate course of conduct (Smith v Bakers and Sons

(1891)). The risk’s legal repercussions also have to be voluntarily accepted

(Nettleship).

This defence does not apply to suicides (Reeves v Metropolitan Police

Commissioner (2000)).

❖ Illegality

There are 2 defences for illegality, and each have a distinctive policy basis. In

the narrow form, the claimant attempts to avoid a penalty which the criminal law

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

, has imposed on him as a consequence of his illegal act. In the wider form, the

claimant seeks compensation for the repercussions of his illegal act. Compensating

the claimant for the repercussions of his criminal behaviour goes against the

public notions on fair distribution of resources (Lord Hoffman – Grey v Thames

Train Ltd (2009)).

3. Psychiatric Injury

It is a mental injury caused to a person by the intentional, negligent acts

or omissions of another without resulting in physical injury. The claimant has to

demonstrate that his damages go beyond grief and emotional distress to include

a recognised mental illness, such as anxiety neurosis or reactive depression.

In Lochgelly Iron v McMullan (1934), Lord Wright confirmed that a claimant

has to prove four elements: a duty of care, a breach of the duty, causation, and

that the damage is not too remote.

In order to establish duty for psychiatric injury, the claimant has to

demonstrate that the harm was a recognised psychiatric injury (Alcock v Chief

Constable of the South Yorkshire Police (1992)). This is different from the

“normal emotions” that people have when confronted with unpleasant

circumstances (Mann LJ, Reilly v Merseyside (1994)).

A claimant is not allowed to make claims for sorrow, grief, anxiety, shock,

distress or depression in the ordinary sense (Alcock v CC of SYP, McLoughlin v

O‛Brian (1983); White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1999)).

❖ Primary victims

A primary victim is someone who was directly involved in the incident, either

because they actually suffered physical injury, were in the zone of physical

danger, or reasonably believed that they were in danger (Page v Smith (1995);

White and Alcock).

Zack Scott’s UOL notes

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 zackscott. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $15.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling