Tort Law: Breach Of Dury at University Of Warwick | Flashcards & Summaries

Select your language

Suggested languages for you:
Log In Start studying!

Lernmaterialien für Tort Law: Breach of Dury an der University of Warwick

Greife auf kostenlose Karteikarten, Zusammenfassungen, Übungsaufgaben und Altklausuren für deinen Tort Law: Breach of Dury Kurs an der University of Warwick zu.

TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Osman v UK (2000)
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
- C claimed police negligent in failing to restrict violent criminal who attacked C
-Rejected by C of A on public policy because it is against  police liability in investigation of crime
-ECHR held that blanket immunity was a breach of Article 6 of ECHR: everyone entitled to hearing by impartial tribunal 

>>Robinson v CCWY (2018): public authorities subject to same liabilities in tort as private individuals and bodies. Although under no duty of care to prevent occurrence of harm (no liability for omission rule 
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
What was the law like in the 19th Century?
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
- there was uncertainty about the duty of care and tortious duty was only imposed when there was a contact between C and D
-Winterbottom v Wright
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Winterbottom v Wright (1842)
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
C contracted with the Postmaster-General to drive a coach supplied by D which was unsafe. C injured but there was no liability because there was no contract between C and D
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Heaven v Pender (1883)
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
First elucidation of duty of care when C a ship painter injured when rope supplied by D snapped 
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Le Lievre v Gould (1893)
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Brett (as Lord Esher) stating the importance of physical proximity "if one man is near to another" or "near the property of another" a duty lies on him not to cause personal injury or injure his property 
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
What are the facts of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Claimant went out with friend who bought her ginger beer and icecream. The beer had a  decomposing snail in its contents which she drank and caused injury to her, tried to tell her she could not sue because of no proximity to manufacturer and no contract with the shop
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
What was decided in Donoghue v Stevenson ?
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
-The "neighbour principle" was created by Lord Atkins
-Emphasised importance of the "foreseeable claimant"
-Provides remedy to consumers where products are likely to cause injury to health
- followed in Grant v Australian Knitting Mill (1936)
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Who is a foreseeable claimant?
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
-Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co(1928) is a good illustration of who is not (US case)

-Bourhill v Young (1943): Lord Porter says "duty not owed to the world at large". 

-Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co:(1970) Liability only for harm caused at time of escape and vicinity 

Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)



Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
-Yorkshire ripper case, last victim
-She was not found to be owed a duty of care.
-Policy reason was that contrary decision might lead to police discretion being limited and exercised in a defensive frame of mins
-"one of the vast members of the female general public" who were at risk - Lord Keith
> His decision was made based on lack of proximity 

>>Comm'r of Police of the Metropolis v DSD (2018): re breach of Article 3 ECHR (torture of human or degrading treatment)- positive obligation imposed on police to investigate reported time and issues of proximity and f, j and r are irrelevant. Only to ECHR cases?
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
What does Lord Denning say in Lamb v Camden LBC (1981)?
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
the elements "continually run into one another" and type of damage or injury can affect the likelihood of liability 
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
What was the test established in Anns v Merton
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
2-stage test by Lord Wilberforce
a)Between C and D is there a sufficient proximity or neighbourhood such that in the reasonable contemplations of D carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to C, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises
b) if answer to a is yes, are there any considerations which ought to negate or limit the scope of duty or the class of person to whom it is owed 
Lösung ausblenden
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
What were criticism to Anns v Merton test?
Lösung anzeigen
TESTE DEIN WISSEN
-Potential for extensive liability as proximity criterion was potentially unlimited in scope if referring to means of reasonable contemplations of likely harm - what consequences are not foreseeable 
-Considerations mean policy grounds and this puts judicial discretion in very bad terms. Does public policy mean no liability ?
Lösung ausblenden
  • 3467 Karteikarten
  • 224 Studierende
  • 3 Lernmaterialien

Beispielhafte Karteikarten für deinen Tort Law: Breach of Dury Kurs an der University of Warwick - von Kommilitonen auf StudySmarter erstellt!

Q:
Osman v UK (2000)
A:
- C claimed police negligent in failing to restrict violent criminal who attacked C
-Rejected by C of A on public policy because it is against  police liability in investigation of crime
-ECHR held that blanket immunity was a breach of Article 6 of ECHR: everyone entitled to hearing by impartial tribunal 

>>Robinson v CCWY (2018): public authorities subject to same liabilities in tort as private individuals and bodies. Although under no duty of care to prevent occurrence of harm (no liability for omission rule 
Q:
What was the law like in the 19th Century?
A:
- there was uncertainty about the duty of care and tortious duty was only imposed when there was a contact between C and D
-Winterbottom v Wright
Q:
Winterbottom v Wright (1842)
A:
C contracted with the Postmaster-General to drive a coach supplied by D which was unsafe. C injured but there was no liability because there was no contract between C and D
Q:
Heaven v Pender (1883)
A:
First elucidation of duty of care when C a ship painter injured when rope supplied by D snapped 
Q:
Le Lievre v Gould (1893)
A:
Brett (as Lord Esher) stating the importance of physical proximity "if one man is near to another" or "near the property of another" a duty lies on him not to cause personal injury or injure his property 
Mehr Karteikarten anzeigen
Q:
What are the facts of Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)?
A:
Claimant went out with friend who bought her ginger beer and icecream. The beer had a  decomposing snail in its contents which she drank and caused injury to her, tried to tell her she could not sue because of no proximity to manufacturer and no contract with the shop
Q:
What was decided in Donoghue v Stevenson ?
A:
-The "neighbour principle" was created by Lord Atkins
-Emphasised importance of the "foreseeable claimant"
-Provides remedy to consumers where products are likely to cause injury to health
- followed in Grant v Australian Knitting Mill (1936)
Q:
Who is a foreseeable claimant?
A:
-Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co(1928) is a good illustration of who is not (US case)

-Bourhill v Young (1943): Lord Porter says "duty not owed to the world at large". 

-Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co:(1970) Liability only for harm caused at time of escape and vicinity 

Q:
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (1989)



A:
-Yorkshire ripper case, last victim
-She was not found to be owed a duty of care.
-Policy reason was that contrary decision might lead to police discretion being limited and exercised in a defensive frame of mins
-"one of the vast members of the female general public" who were at risk - Lord Keith
> His decision was made based on lack of proximity 

>>Comm'r of Police of the Metropolis v DSD (2018): re breach of Article 3 ECHR (torture of human or degrading treatment)- positive obligation imposed on police to investigate reported time and issues of proximity and f, j and r are irrelevant. Only to ECHR cases?
Q:
What does Lord Denning say in Lamb v Camden LBC (1981)?
A:
the elements "continually run into one another" and type of damage or injury can affect the likelihood of liability 
Q:
What was the test established in Anns v Merton
A:
2-stage test by Lord Wilberforce
a)Between C and D is there a sufficient proximity or neighbourhood such that in the reasonable contemplations of D carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to C, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises
b) if answer to a is yes, are there any considerations which ought to negate or limit the scope of duty or the class of person to whom it is owed 
Q:
What were criticism to Anns v Merton test?
A:
-Potential for extensive liability as proximity criterion was potentially unlimited in scope if referring to means of reasonable contemplations of likely harm - what consequences are not foreseeable 
-Considerations mean policy grounds and this puts judicial discretion in very bad terms. Does public policy mean no liability ?
Tort Law: Breach of Dury

Erstelle und finde Lernmaterialien auf StudySmarter.

Greife kostenlos auf tausende geteilte Karteikarten, Zusammenfassungen, Altklausuren und mehr zu.

Jetzt loslegen

Das sind die beliebtesten Tort Law: Breach of Dury Kurse im gesamten StudySmarter Universum

Divisions of law

University of South Africa

Zum Kurs
Law of Contract and Tort

University of the West Indies, Mona

Zum Kurs
Law of Delict

University of Cape Town

Zum Kurs
Tort Law

University of Huddersfield

Zum Kurs
Breach of contract

University of Johannesburg

Zum Kurs

Die all-in-one Lernapp für Studierende

Greife auf Millionen geteilter Lernmaterialien der StudySmarter Community zu
Kostenlos anmelden Tort Law: Breach of Dury
Erstelle Karteikarten und Zusammenfassungen mit den StudySmarter Tools
Kostenlos loslegen Tort Law: Breach of Dury