BPP University College Of Professional Studies Limited (BPP)
Graduate Diploma in Law
Tort Law
All documents for this subject (7)
2
reviews
By: askudder123 • 4 year ago
By: callumgreaves • 5 year ago
Seller
Follow
gdlrevision
Reviews received
Content preview
General Negligence:
1. Parties
2. Tort: General negligence.
3. Loss/Damage: P.I.
4. Duty:
Caparo v Dickman:
o First look for existing precedent
o If not, there should only be a new precedent if:
The damage reasonably foreseeable
Is there proximity between the parties
Is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a DoC on the Def
Recognised categories:
o Donoghue v Stevenson (manufacturer and consumer);
o Nettleship v Weston (road users);
o Cassidy v MoH (doctor and patient);
o Bull v Devon (hospital and patient);
o Wilson v English (employer and employee);
o ICI v Shatwell (employees to employees).
Problem categories:
o Police:
General rule – No duty of care for every person, however court distinguishes between
‘operational’ issues and ‘policy’ issues.
Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire: Operational concern (negligently fired gas into
shop causing fire) – duty of care found.
Costello v CC of Northumbria: Operational issue. Duty imposed as proximate
relationship and related to officer doing job adequately.
Hill v CC of West Yorkshire: No duty of care imposed as insufficient proximity
between D and C and to impose duty would result in defensive practices and
questions over resource allocation. c.f. Home Office v Dorset Yacht.
Alexandrou v Oxford: Police under no duty to attend emergencies.
Leach v CC Gloucester: No proximate relationship between C and police as she
did not work for the police and they had not assumed responsibility. Issue over
defensive practice.
Osman v Ferguson: No issues foreseeability/proximity, however, would not be
fair, just and reasonable to impose duty on grounds of policy considerations/
potentially defensive practices.
Swinney v CC of Northumbria: Informers have special relationship with police.
Duty imposed, however not breached on the facts.
o Emergency services:
, Capital Counties v Hampshire: Fire services – no duty to attend emergency,
however if they make it worse they are liable.
Kent v Griffiths: Ambulance – duty of care imposed by accepting call.
o Omissions:
General rule – No duty for pure omissions: Smith v Littlewoods.
Exceptions:
Where D has contractual duty: Stansbie v Troman (decorator)
Where D has high degree of control over C: Reeves v MPC.
Where there is a pre-existing relationship between C and D and D assumes
responsibility (Barrett v MOD).
Where D creates dangerous situation: (Capital Counties v Hampshire)
o Failure to prevent third-party from causing harm:
General rule – No duty imposed for failure to prevent third-part from causing harm.
Exceptions:
Where there is proximity between the C and D (Home Office v Dorset Yacht)
Where there is proximity between the D and the third-party (Home Office v Dorset
Yacht; Carmathenshire CC v Lewis)
Where the D negligently creates or allows the creation of a danger, which results in
C’s loss (Stansbie v Troman)
Where the D knows or ought to have known of the danger on their property created
by a third-party (Smith v Littlewoods).
o Location Authorities:
General rule – While a council may have the statutory authority to do something, this
does not mean that they have an automatic statutory duty. Thus there is no automatic
duty of care (Stovin v Wise).
Palmer v Tees: No proximity between D and the third-party. No duty imposed on local
authority.
Mitchell v Glasgow CC: Proximate relationship, however local authority had never
assumed responsibility for third-party.
S v Gloucestershire CC: Looked at X v Bedfordshire CC and said that child abuse cases
are fat sensitive and must be looked at individually. Apply Caparo test.
o Rescuers:
General rule – no broad duty to rescue; those who do will be treated more favourably if they
suffer loss in the process.
5. Standard of care:
o General rule – question of law.
o Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks: ‘D must behave as a reasonable man in all the
circumstances’.
o Hall v Brooklands: ‘Man in the Clapham omnibus’.
o Bolton v Stone: D need not be perfect; someone who is careful but still someone who takes
some risks.
o Nettleship v Weston: Objective test – ‘act not actor’.
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 gdlrevision. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $10.32. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
