I scored 75% in Tort Law and received a Distinction (74%) overall in the GDL at the University of Law using these notes.
These notes are written in the form of step-by-step exam plans. Compared to standard notes, this will save you lots of time. Most people will make notes during workshops, and ...
Tort Law - Negligence (Duty, breach, causation, defences)
N.B. always consider the time limits for tort claims - Limitation Act 1980:
- Normally, the limitation period is six years from when the cause of action arises
- Except:
- Defamation cases concerning the publication of defamatory statements - 1
yr
- Personal injury claims - within 3 yrs of the date of injury
- Children - the time period does not start to run until the child turns 18
[STEP 1] Introduce negligence claim
C v D - [INSERT TORT]
[INSERT C] can consider suing [INSERT D] in the tort of negligence for [INSERT C’s
HARM CAUSED BY D’S ACT].
Negligence is a breach by the defendant (D) of a legal duty of care owed to the claimant
(C) that results in actionable damage to C, unintended by D.
[IF FOLLOW UP] [INSERT C] can consider suing [INSERT D] in negligence (see
definition above) for [INSERT C’s HARM].
[STEP 2] Duty of care
Duty of care
Established duty situations:
[INSERT RELEVANT ESTABLISHED DUTY FROM BELOW LIST] is likely to be an
established duty situation (insert authority if there is one).
[IF ESTABLISHED DUTY PRESENT] [INSERT D] owes [INSERT C] a duty of care in
relation to [INSERT SCENARIO].
Examples:
- One road user to another (driver to other drivers;driver to passenger; driver to
pedestrian; cyclist to driver;cyclist to pedestrian…)
- Doctor - patient
- Teacher - pupil
- Tutor - tutee
, - Employer - employee (GO TO WS6)
- Manufacturer - consumer
- Adult / parent in loco parentis - child
- Advocate - client (Arthur J S Hall and Co. v Simmons)
- One road user - another road user (e.g. driver - pedestrian (London Passenger
Transport Board v Upson) , driver - cyclist, pedestrian - driver…)
- Driver - passenger (Nettleship v Weston)
- D to rescuer - where D’s actions create a dangerous situation so that it is
reasonably foreseeable that someone may attempt a rescue (Baker TE Hopkins
& Son Ltd).
- Fellow participants in sporting events (Condon v Basi)
- Contractors - those who could be foreseeably injured by their carelessness (AC
Billings v Riden), including trespassers (Buckland v Guildford Gas Light & Coke
Co)
- Includes all situations which were novel when considered in court, and so
satisfied the Caparo test:
- Kent v Griffiths [2000] - ambulance service failed to arrive in reasonable
time, liable for C’s harm (cardiac arrest during the delay)
- Established that a duty of care does not exist for:
- Fire service to emergency caller (Capital & Counties v Hampshire County
Council).
- Ratio - lack of sufficiently proximate relationship between the fire
brigade and the emergency caller (which was the owner of the
building on fire)
Novel duty situations:
APPLY CAPARO, APART FROM 1) POLICE, 2) PUBLIC BODY / OMISSIONS. Go
straight to relevant sections for these (IF THERE’S NO ESTABLISHED DUTY or
IT’S UNCLEAR).
If not, [INSERT D] owes a duty to [INSERT C] in relation to [INSERT SCENARIO] if (as
per Caparo):
- It is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant’s actions will affect the claimant;
, - There sufficient proximity of relationship between the claimant and defendant;
and
- It is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
Foreseeability
- Not foreseeable in Bourhill v Young
- Facts:
- C heard motorcycle-car collision, saw blood on road, claimed they
suffered shock and a miscarriage
- Held:
- D not liable - motorcyclist did not owe a duty of care to C as C was
not a reasonably foreseeable V of the Motorcyclist's negligence
Proximity of relationship
- A lack of proximity was the reason for C’s failed damages claim in Caparo -
relationship of proximity too distant between outside investors with no
shareholding and shareholders.
Fair, just and reasonable
Whether it is ‘fair, just and reasonable’ to impose a duty of care depends on policy
considerations.
[CHOOSE RELEVANT ONES FROM BELOW]
- ‘Floodgates’ argument
- This could be an argument against imposing a duty on the grounds that
allowing one case to succeed would open the floodgates to many similar
claims.
- Deterrence
- Imposition of a duty of care on a defendant may deter others in the same
situation from acting carelessly.
- Public benefit
- The courts may consider a decision’s benefit to the public (normally in
deterrence cases)
- Resources
- The courts will consider that when C succeeds against D, money passes
from one to another
- Courts consider the existence of insurance
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 lawnotes08. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.26. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
