Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Tort vs other legal wrongs |
Tort is ●not breach of contract ●not a crime |
|
|
Tort |
●civil wrong( claimaint suffers loss) ●sues in civil court for damages or injuction ●no prior relation or transaction needed ●ex- person is hit by bike n claims |
|
|
Types of torts |
■ passing off ■ negligence |
|
|
Passing off |
Use of name, mark or description that misleads a consumer to believe that their business is that of another. Ex- designer product copied n sold |
|
|
Negligence |
Carelessness of individual or company which cause damage to individual and are usually unintentional |
|
|
Action of negligence that claimaint must prove |
●defendant had a duty of care to avoid such injury, damage or loss ●breach of that duty ●clamaint suffered injury, damage or loss |
|
|
Donoghue vs Stevenson 1932 |
A purchase beer & B consumed it & got ill. Seller argued he had no contract with B. Court said every person owes a duty to neighbours or person affected by act that i ought reasonably to have contemplation as being so affected |
|
|
Stages for establishing a duty of care |
●harm reasonably foreseeable ●close relation between parties ●is it fair, just & reasonable to impose a duty of care |
|
|
If duty of care has been breached |
●probability of injury ( greater precaution when high risk) ●seriousness of risk ( egg shell skull rule) ●practicality & cost ( cost exceed risk) ●common practise ●social benefit (fire truck ) ●professional & skill ( judge according to skill) |
|
|
Egg-shell skull rule |
Must take victims as they are
Risk to vunerable is high, raise level of care |
|
|
Res ipsa Ioquitur |
Accident occurs & court implies this rule & infer negligence on proof of facts, burden of proof lies on defendent to prove |
|
|
Claimaint must demonstrate following to rely Res ipsa Ioquitur |
●injury was under mgmt & control of defendent ●not occur if used proper care |
|
|
The 'But for' test |
Claimaint must prove that he would not suffer damage if not others action If suffer damage irrespective of defendents action then no claim |
|
|
Novus actus interveniens |
Liability borne when event results of defendent actions
Defendent not liable if chain of event broken |
|
|
Intervening act break chain of causation |
●act of clamaint ( clamaint action break chain of causation ) ●act of third party ( liable for damages until intervention ) ●natural events ( unforceable event breaks chain) |
|
|
The Wagon Mound 1961 |
》Ship spilled oil where welding equipment was in use 》continue work as fire was unlikely by spark but caught fire by cotton waste floating on oil 》sued ship owner 》claim fail; pollution was forceable but fire not |
|
|
Contributory negligence |
Reduce damages paid if clamaint contributed to own injury or loss Ex- climbing public toilet cubicle with defective lock |
|
|
Volenti non fit injuria |
Proved that clamaint expressly or impliedly consented to risk ( awareness is not sufficient) Ex- disregarding safety rules & willingly acted restless |
|
|
Vicarious liability |
Employee avoid negligence if acting on employer business during incident as per employer instruction; even if not followed |
|
|
Special relationship |
Person making statements must have done some professional or expert capacity which made it likely others would rely on what said Position- accountant, banker, solicitor or surveyor |
|
|
The Caparo decision |
Case for understanding professional negligence; decided that auditors do not owe duty of care to public at large or shareholder increasing their stakes in company |
|
|
Caparo industries plc vs Dickman and others 1990 |
Caparo held share & bought more to takeover seeing profit of £ 1.3m . Caparo claimed that a/c showed loss of 400000 and had made investment on auditors decision Decision: auditor duty not extent to potentional investor or shareholders to increase steak |
|
|
ADT ltd vs BDO Hamlyn 1995 |
Auditor audit showing true and fair view; ADT made confirmation with auditor of results and invested. But found its value to be low than paid and used auditor Decision: court expects high standards on giving advice on aquistion as loss can be high |
