100% de satisfacción garantizada Inmediatamente disponible después del pago Tanto en línea como en PDF No estas atado a nada
logo-home
Summary Comprehensive (GDL) Tort Law revision notes: General Negligence, Nuisance, Occupiers' Liability $10.08
Añadir al carrito

Resumen

Summary Comprehensive (GDL) Tort Law revision notes: General Negligence, Nuisance, Occupiers' Liability

2 reseñas
 6 veces vendidas
  • Grado
  • Institución

Comprehensive Tort Law notes compiled in preparation for 2017 GDL exam. Topics covered: General Negligence, Nuisance, Occupiers' Liability

Vista previa 2 fuera de 25  páginas

  • 15 de octubre de 2017
  • 25
  • 2017/2018
  • Resumen

2  reseñas

review-writer-avatar

Por: askudder123 • 5 año hace

review-writer-avatar

Por: callumgreaves • 5 año hace

avatar-seller
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’.

Los beneficios de comprar resúmenes en Stuvia estan en línea:

Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios

Garantiza la calidad de los comentarios

Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!

Compra fácil y rápido

Compra fácil y rápido

Puedes pagar rápidamente y en una vez con iDeal, tarjeta de crédito o con tu crédito de Stuvia. Sin tener que hacerte miembro.

Enfócate en lo más importante

Enfócate en lo más importante

Tus compañeros escriben los resúmenes. Por eso tienes la seguridad que tienes un resumen actual y confiable. Así llegas a la conclusión rapidamente!

Preguntas frecuentes

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.

100% de satisfacción garantizada: ¿Cómo funciona?

Nuestra garantía de satisfacción le asegura que siempre encontrará un documento de estudio a tu medida. Tu rellenas un formulario y nuestro equipo de atención al cliente se encarga del resto.

Who am I buying this summary 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 this summary for $10.08. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

45,681 summaries were sold in the last 30 days

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

Empieza a vender

Vistos recientemente


$10.08  6x  vendido
  • (2)
Añadir al carrito
Añadido