Tort Of Negligence 2

Front 1

If the duty of care isn't already covered by precedent what are the 3 requirements?

Back 1

1. Harm to claimant must be reasonably foreseeable

2. There must be a relationship of proximity between the claimant and defendant

3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty on the defendant

Front 2

Once claimant has proved duty of care he must show the defendant has breached it. Reasonable man test! (Blyth) Explain:

Back 2

What the 'reasonable man' would have foreseen, not what the defendant actually did see

Front 3

Proof. Who is the burden of proving a breach of duty? And what is the test?

Back 3

Claimant.

Balance of probabilities

Front 4

In considering what the reasonable man would have foreseen the courts have also considered what?

Back 4

Likelihood of the occurrence of harm

Gravity of injury (potential seriousness)

Cost if overcoming the risk is cheap there is more likely to be a breach

Front 5

Example case in Gravity of injury forseen

Back 5

Paris v Stepney borough council

(Not supply goggles to a one-eyed employee)

Front 6

Determining damages. Test of remoteness! What was the test of remoteness is negligence laid down by?

Back 6

The wagon mound.

It provides the defendant should only be liable if the relevant type of loss is a foreseeable consequence of his breach of duty

Front 7

What is the eggshell rule?

Back 7

Defendant takes the claimant as he finds him! (Liable even if the claimant is old and suffers worse injuries than someone else would)

Front 8

Who can be a claimant under the consumer protection act 1987

Back 8

A person who has suffered an injury or damage to property caused by a defective product

(Rules of foreseeability do not apply)

Front 9

Who can be a claimant under the consumer protection act 1987

Back 9

A person who has suffered an injury or damage to property caused by a defective product

(Rules of foreseeability do not apply)

Front 10

Under section 2(1) of the consumer protection act 1987 what 5 things must the consumer show??

Back 10

1, they have suffered damage

2, caused by

3, a defect

4, in a product

5, and the person is a potential defendant

Front 11

What defences are there to the Consumer protection act 1987 (section 4)

Back 11

'state of the art' producer couldn't discover the defect due to technology'

Front 12

What is vicarious liability?

Back 12

Where one or more people can be made liable in tort for the actions of another

Front 13

Why have vicarious liability?

Back 13

Liability could be on an employee as they should take the burden too and employees might not be worth suing - employer would be better!

Front 14

What relationship is necessary for vicarious liability to arise??

Back 14

Relationship between employee and employer! Can't be a contractor!

Front 15

What exemption from liability clauses might you see in a contract?

Back 15

No responsibility is accepted for loss, damage or injury, no claim unless Oman timescale it in the event of a loss liability is limited to x amount.

Front 16

What is a way to control exemption clauses?

Back 16

Unfair contract terms act 1977 and common law tests

Front 17

What is the common law test which should be applied before turning to the unfair trading act?

Back 17

Does the clause form part of the contract and does the clause cover the breach which has occurred?