Tort Law 251 Week 2

Front 1

Define Breach

Back 1

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would act

Front 2

What case can the definition of breach be found in?

Back 2

Blyth v Birmingham waterworks (1856)

Front 3

Name that case:

The Reasonable Man is an objective not subjective test.

The passenger on the underground

Back 3

(MacFarlane v Tayside Health Board 2000)

Front 4

Name that case:

Does not have the courage of Achilles, the wisdom of Ulysses nor the strength of Hercules,nor has he the prophetic vision of clairvoyant

This person is ordinary, nothing special, not a Greek god

Back 4

Hawkins v Couldson & Purley UDC 1954

Front 5

Name that case:

Should learn from experiences

Back 5

Lang v London Transport Executive 1959

Front 6

Name that case:

Reasonable, not perfect

Back 6

AC Billings v Riden 1958

Front 7

Define: Standard of care

Back 7

What standard of care is expected of a particular defendant?This is the question of how the defendant ought to have behaved. The standard is usually set by law

Cooke, 2013: 152

Front 8

Name that case:

There is a margin of error when dealing with emergencies

Back 8

Greene v Sookdeo 2009

Front 9

Name that case:

There is a margin of error where D has to make a quick decision

Back 9

Smoldon v Whitworth 1997

Front 10

Specified standards owed:

standard owed by children is ‘judged by the standard of what would be reasonable to expect of a child of that age

Back 10

Mullin v Richard 1998

or

Orchard v Lee 2009

Front 11

Name that case:

New drivers, learning drivers, old drivers all have a standard of care owed

Back 11

Nettleship v Weston 1971

Front 12

Name that case:

Foreseeability

When deciding whether the objective standard has been met, the foreseeability of harm will often be a relevant consideration

Back 12

Roe v Minister of Health [1954]

Front 13

Name that case:

Professional standards

Having become owners of ships, they [D] must act as reasonable shipowners’

Back 13

The Lady Gwendolen [1965]

Front 14

Neglect of duty does not cease by repetition of neglect of duty

Back 14

Bank of Montreal v Dominion Guarantee Co [1930]

Front 15

Industry practice

D will comply with widely held professional standard of court

Back 15

Morris v West Hartlepool Steam[1956]

Front 16

Name that case:

Magnitude of the risk

The general principle is that the greater the likelihood of harm, the higher standard of care will be required

Back 16

Bolton v Stone 1951

Front 17

Name that case:

Seriousness of Harm

1 eyed man, no safety glasses, man lost his only eye

Back 17

Paris v Stephney Borough Council 1951

Front 18

Name that case:

practicality of precaustions

Risk v practicality (cost, how easy is it to do)

Back 18

Latimer v AEC 1953