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;
21 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Omissions generally Smith v Littlewoods Organisation |
courts generally unwilling to impose liability for omissions for fear of compromising personal autonomy |
|
|
Misfeasance 1) 2) |
1) An omission in the course of an act e.g omission in the course of supervising prisoners(Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd) 2) the ordinary rules of tort liability apply in these case - ie not treated as omissions |
|
|
Exceptions Michael v South Wales Police 1) 2) |
1) Where D was in a position of control over T and should have foreseen the likelihood of T causing damage to someone in close proximity to D if D failed to take reasonable care in the exercise of that control 2) Where D assumes a positive responsibility to safeguard C and C relies on it |
|
|
Induced Reliance Stovin v Wise |
Duty to act if one has undertaken to do so or induced a person to rely on one doing so |
|
|
Non Delegable Duties 1) 2) 3) |
1) employer-employer 2) prisoner-prisoner 3) education authority-child |
|
|
Criteria for non delegable duties Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) |
1) C is especially vulnerable or dependent on the protection of D 2) There is an antecedent relationship between C + D -which places C in actual custody,charge or care of D - from which it is possible to impute to D the assumption of a positive duty to protect C from harm 3) C has no control over how D chooses to perform said obligations 4) D delegates the positive duty to a third party 5) Third party has been negligent in the performance of the delegated duty |
|
|
Assuming responsibility for a task (case) |
Stansbie v Troman |
|
|
Adjoining owners- 3 conditions Goldman v Hargrave 1) 2) 3) |
1) D must have knowledge of the danger 2) damage must have been a foreseeable consequence 3) D must have had the ability to mitigate the foreseeable consequence occurring |
|
|
Omissions- Public authorities? |
Not liable where there have outsourced work save where exceptions set out in Michael apply |
|
|
Omissions- Regulatory bodies? Yuen Kun Yeu v A-G of Hong Kong |
generally no, unless Michael is satisfied |
|
|
Omissions- the police Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police 1) 2) |
1) Generally they will not be liable for omissions (Hill v West Yorks Police) 2) Lord Toulson in Michael rejects that police are given special protection but contends that this is an ordinary application of the common law |
|
|
Can police be liable in act cases? An informer |
yes |
|
|
Liability for omissions - NHS services 1) 2) |
1) Duty owed in respect of failure to diagnose 2) Duty owed in respect of failure to treat |
|
|
Ambulance services Kent v Griffths |
Under a duty to respond properly to a call for assistance |
|
|
Fire Service 1) 2) |
1) Generally no duty to act positively to prevent fire damage (Capital & Countries plc v Hampshire Co) 2) exception- where fire service acts but makes the situation worse |
|
|
Social Workers D v East Berks |
owe a duty to protect children in their care |
|
|
Prison officers |
duty owed to prisoners |
|
|
Why should omissions be treated differently to positive acts Stovin v Wise (Lord Hoffman) 1) 2) 3) |
1) Political - unwilling to invade personal autonomy 2) Moral - how many people would party in question be required to protect? 3) Economic efficiency - party which causes the loss should bear the cost |
|
|
Can there be private law liability imposed for failure to exercise public duties? Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Bourough Council 1) 2) |
1) Only in very exceptional cases in which this was the Parliamentary intention 2) Courts unwilling to create "society bend on litigation" (Lord Steyn) |
|
|
Can ambulance service be liable for being unjustifiably slow in responding Kent v Griffths 1) 2) |
yes 1) duty of care arose when call was accepted 2) It was foreseeable that further injury would result from a delayed response |
|
|
Can there be liability for not looking after someone who is intoxicated Barret v MOD |
yes, where party in question assumed responsibility to do so |
