Law of Torts - Unit III: Tort of Negligence Practice Flashcards

Vocabulary flashcards covering core topics, precedent cases, and rules of the Tort of Negligence in Law of Torts Unit III.

Negligence (as a Mental Element)

Careless conduct in the commission of another tort, such as negligently committing trespass or another wrong.

Negligence (as a Separate Tort)

An independent cause of action based on conduct creating an unreasonable risk of causing damage, where a legal duty of care is breached and actionable damage results.

The ABC Rule

A formulation outlining the essential elements of negligence: (A) Duty of care owed to the plaintiff, (B) Breach of that duty, and (C) Consequent damage.

Neighbour Principle

A legal principle formulated by Lord Atkin requiring reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions reasonably foreseen as likely to injure persons so closely and directly affected that they ought reasonably to be in contemplation.

Donoghue v Stevenson

A foundational House of Lords decision establishing that a product manufacturer owes a legal duty of care to the ultimate consumer where the product is intended to reach them without reasonable opportunity for intermediate examination, regardless of a contractual relationship.

Anns v Merton

A historical decision establishing a two-stage approach for novel duty situations: first examining proximity and reasonable contemplation of harm, followed by policy considerations that may limit or negative the duty.

White v Jones

A case where solicitors were held to owe a duty of care to intended beneficiaries who suffered pure economic loss due to negligent delay in preparing a new will, based on an assumption of responsibility.

Objective Standard of Care

The legal standard used to assess breach by comparing a defendant's conduct against what a hypothetical reasonable and prudent person possessing ordinary intelligence and foresight would have done in the circumstances.

Rural Transport Service v Bezlum Bibi

An Indian authority holding that permitting passengers to travel on the roof of an overloaded bus created a foreseeable and serious risk, breaching the heightened standard of care required in passenger transport.

Cates v Mongini Bros

A decision establishing that defendants are not liable for negligence when injury is caused by an undiscoverable latent defect that could not reasonably have been discovered through ordinary care and inspection.

Bolton v Stone

A decision establishing that foreseeability alone is insufficient to require precautions if the likelihood of harm is so exceptionally small that a reasonable person would disregard it.

Pure Economic Loss

Financial damage or loss that does not directly result from physical personal injury to the claimant or physical damage to their property.

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd

A landmark decision establishing that negligent misstatements causing pure economic loss can create tortious liability if a special relationship, assumption of responsibility, and reasonable reliance exist.

Learned Hand / BPL Formula

An economic risk-balancing formulation where failure to take precautions indicates negligence if the burden of precaution ($B$) is less than the probability of an accident ($P$) multiplied by the gravity of loss ($L$) ($B < P \times L$).

Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd

A case illustrating an exception to the pure economic loss rule, where liability was imposed on specialist subcontractors without a direct contract due to exceptional proximity and reliance.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

An evidentiary principle meaning "the thing speaks for itself" that permits an inference of negligence when an accident is under the defendant's control and ordinarily would not occur without negligence.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Subhagwanti

An Indian Supreme Court decision applying res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence from the collapse of an eighty-year-old clock tower under exclusive municipal control.

Shyam Sunder v State of Rajasthan

An Indian Supreme Court decision applying res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence when a passenger died following an unexplained fire in a vehicle with a known radiator defect managed by the defendant.

Wilkinson v Downton

A case establishing liability for intentional infliction of severe emotional and physical harm caused by false statements, distinguished from ordinary negligence.

Dulieu v White & Sons

An early psychiatric injury decision recognizing recovery under the impact or fear-for-self theory when shock resulted from reasonable fear for the claimant's own immediate physical safety.

Hambrook v Stokes Bros

A decision expanding psychiatric injury recovery under the area-of-shock theory to include reasonable fear for the safety of close family members rather than only fear for oneself.

Bourhill v Young

A House of Lords decision denying recovery for psychiatric injury to a bystander who was outside the zone of physical danger because psychiatric harm was not reasonably foreseeable.

McLoughlin v O'Brian

A decision establishing that a claimant can satisfy proximity requirements for psychiatric injury if they encounter injured family members in the immediate aftermath of an accident at the hospital.

Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

A leading decision setting strict control mechanisms for secondary victims of psychiatric harm: close ties of love and affection, proximity in time and space, and direct perception through unaided senses.

Primary Victim

A direct participant in an accident or a person within the foreseeable zone of physical danger who can recover for psychiatric harm if personal injury was reasonably foreseeable.

Secondary Victim

A witness or person affected by injury to another who suffers a recognized psychiatric illness and must satisfy the strict Alcock control mechanisms to recover damages.

Page v Smith

A decision holding that for primary victims, if some personal injury is reasonably foreseeable, consequential psychiatric injury may be recoverable without requiring separate foreseeability of psychiatric harm.

Chadwick v British Railways Board

A decision recognizing that rescuers who suffer psychiatric injury from direct involvement in rescue efforts at a horrific accident scene fall within a protected category.