England
Campbell v MGN → misuse of private information
Caparo Industries plc. v Dickman → negligent misstatement, special (fiduciary relationship) or
assumption of responsibility, in particular for false statements (however, do NOT use Caparo
test, it is not used nowadays anymore!!) Caparo test : 1. foreseeability of damage, 2. Proximity,
3. the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the
law should impose a duty of care
Catholic Child Welfare Society v The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools →
vicarious liability, 1. relationship D1 and D2 and see whether it is one that is capable of
giving rise to vicarious liability + 2. the connection that links the relationship between D1 and
D2 and the act or omission of D1, relationship can properly give rise to vicarious liability on the
ground that it is “akin to that between an employer and employee”
Donoghue v Stevenson → negligence (duty of care), Ground of liability (wrongfulness) →
causality → harm, can also be product liability?
● Facts: snail in bottle, shock, gastroenteritis (stomach flu), manufacturer could prevent
(was careless) and manufacturer made it impossible to check contents
● Law: duty of care (manufacturer to consumer), breach of duty, harm as consequence
(shock etc.) and relationship of duty, customer has to rely on diligence of manufacturer
● Decision: award of damages (obligation to pay damages)
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd → negligent misstatement(when incorrect
information is given to u) (duty of care is presumed and u do not have to prove the duty of care),
Four conditions of Hedley Byrne case: 1. Duty of care for information (either - Special
relationship (fiduciary relationship) of trust and confidence OR Voluntary assumption of risk
by party preparing advice / information) and 2. Compensable harm ( Reliance on advice /
information by other party AND Reliance was reasonable) (however, do NOT use these, bc
nowadays only four factor test is used + reasonable person)
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police → negligence, compare conduct of the
defendant with that of a REASONABLE PERSON → BUT Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the
Birmingham Water Works case is the REAL precedent for ‘reasonable person’
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd. v Martin & Co Ltd → damage from economic loss (this is not a type
of tort, but falls under harm and damage)
X and others (minors) v Bedfordshire County Council → breach of statutory duty, Tort of
breach of statutory duty: 1. There is a statutory duty, 2. Breach of that duty, 3. Causation of
damage, 4. Legislator(=parliament) intended a private right of action
,When there is negligence in English law:
1- name the 3 requirements (duty of care, breach, ... etc)
2- name whether there is a duty of care - by using reasonable person
3- four factor test
Four factor test applicable everywhere
France
Blieck case → vicarious liability, liability for other persons, such as independent contractors,
or liability from parents to children, “organise, direct and control the activity”
U.S.
Summers v Tice → not a tort, it falls under ‘causation’, this is in case the ‘but for’ test doesn’t
work, you have to ask yourself who should bear the burden of proof? They were jointly liable.
ECHR
Von Hannover v Germany → privacy rights, such as pictures being taken of you (however, this
is being used as case law for England?????)
INDIA:
Mehta v Union of India - idk wtf this is?????? Oh probably under ‘other forms of liability’ but idk
what were supposed to do w this
ALL of the torts:
,!!^^^^^^
How to categorize them:
She forgot to put breach of statutory duty in here^ but its a separate category too
+ DONT FORGET to also consider the strict liability/fault liability for english law
HEADS OF DAMAGE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS/ kinds of
damage
Hospital costs Personal injury
, Psychological costs ii
Surgery costs ii
Loss of amenity (i think this means like ii
pain and suffering but idk)
Medical costs/expenses (kinda the ii
same as hospital costs/surgery
[1]
costs)
Rehabilitation costs ii
Physical therapy costs ii
Permanent medical condition ii
Emotional damage ii
Immaterial damage i.e Pain and Ii (CAN be for secondary
[2] victims, does not have to tho)
suffering
Loss of consortium (for married people) Ii (also for secondary victims)
Funeral costs (in case someone dies) Ii (this is for the secondary
victims, such as family)
[3] ii
Non-pecuniary loss
Future loss ii
[4] Ii
Loss of Income
Loss of revenue ii
Consequential economic loss ii
[5] ii
Loss of maintenance
[6] Ii
Loss of profit
Campbell v MGN → misuse of private information
Caparo Industries plc. v Dickman → negligent misstatement, special (fiduciary relationship) or
assumption of responsibility, in particular for false statements (however, do NOT use Caparo
test, it is not used nowadays anymore!!) Caparo test : 1. foreseeability of damage, 2. Proximity,
3. the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the
law should impose a duty of care
Catholic Child Welfare Society v The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools →
vicarious liability, 1. relationship D1 and D2 and see whether it is one that is capable of
giving rise to vicarious liability + 2. the connection that links the relationship between D1 and
D2 and the act or omission of D1, relationship can properly give rise to vicarious liability on the
ground that it is “akin to that between an employer and employee”
Donoghue v Stevenson → negligence (duty of care), Ground of liability (wrongfulness) →
causality → harm, can also be product liability?
● Facts: snail in bottle, shock, gastroenteritis (stomach flu), manufacturer could prevent
(was careless) and manufacturer made it impossible to check contents
● Law: duty of care (manufacturer to consumer), breach of duty, harm as consequence
(shock etc.) and relationship of duty, customer has to rely on diligence of manufacturer
● Decision: award of damages (obligation to pay damages)
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd. v Heller & Partners Ltd → negligent misstatement(when incorrect
information is given to u) (duty of care is presumed and u do not have to prove the duty of care),
Four conditions of Hedley Byrne case: 1. Duty of care for information (either - Special
relationship (fiduciary relationship) of trust and confidence OR Voluntary assumption of risk
by party preparing advice / information) and 2. Compensable harm ( Reliance on advice /
information by other party AND Reliance was reasonable) (however, do NOT use these, bc
nowadays only four factor test is used + reasonable person)
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police → negligence, compare conduct of the
defendant with that of a REASONABLE PERSON → BUT Blyth v. Company Proprietors of the
Birmingham Water Works case is the REAL precedent for ‘reasonable person’
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd. v Martin & Co Ltd → damage from economic loss (this is not a type
of tort, but falls under harm and damage)
X and others (minors) v Bedfordshire County Council → breach of statutory duty, Tort of
breach of statutory duty: 1. There is a statutory duty, 2. Breach of that duty, 3. Causation of
damage, 4. Legislator(=parliament) intended a private right of action
,When there is negligence in English law:
1- name the 3 requirements (duty of care, breach, ... etc)
2- name whether there is a duty of care - by using reasonable person
3- four factor test
Four factor test applicable everywhere
France
Blieck case → vicarious liability, liability for other persons, such as independent contractors,
or liability from parents to children, “organise, direct and control the activity”
U.S.
Summers v Tice → not a tort, it falls under ‘causation’, this is in case the ‘but for’ test doesn’t
work, you have to ask yourself who should bear the burden of proof? They were jointly liable.
ECHR
Von Hannover v Germany → privacy rights, such as pictures being taken of you (however, this
is being used as case law for England?????)
INDIA:
Mehta v Union of India - idk wtf this is?????? Oh probably under ‘other forms of liability’ but idk
what were supposed to do w this
ALL of the torts:
,!!^^^^^^
How to categorize them:
She forgot to put breach of statutory duty in here^ but its a separate category too
+ DONT FORGET to also consider the strict liability/fault liability for english law
HEADS OF DAMAGE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS/ kinds of
damage
Hospital costs Personal injury
, Psychological costs ii
Surgery costs ii
Loss of amenity (i think this means like ii
pain and suffering but idk)
Medical costs/expenses (kinda the ii
same as hospital costs/surgery
[1]
costs)
Rehabilitation costs ii
Physical therapy costs ii
Permanent medical condition ii
Emotional damage ii
Immaterial damage i.e Pain and Ii (CAN be for secondary
[2] victims, does not have to tho)
suffering
Loss of consortium (for married people) Ii (also for secondary victims)
Funeral costs (in case someone dies) Ii (this is for the secondary
victims, such as family)
[3] ii
Non-pecuniary loss
Future loss ii
[4] Ii
Loss of Income
Loss of revenue ii
Consequential economic loss ii
[5] ii
Loss of maintenance
[6] Ii
Loss of profit
