BPP University College Of Professional Studies Limited (BPP)
Graduate Diploma in Law
Tort Law
Todos documentos para esta materia (7)
2
reseñas
Por: askudder123 • 5 año hace
Por: callumgreaves • 5 año hace
Vendedor
Seguir
gdlrevision
Comentarios recibidos
Vista previa del contenido
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
Compradores de Stuvia evaluaron más de 700.000 resúmenes. Así estas seguro que compras los mejores documentos!
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
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.