Tort law

Donoghue v stevenson

Tort law case that establishes the existence of common duty of care. Duty that exists to anyone anticipated to be affected.

Caparo v dickman

Established the three part test to prove if there is a duty of care due.

1. Foreseeability

2. Proximity

3. Reasonable

Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire police [2018]

• No "Blanket Immunity": Dispelled the myth that police are immune from negligence claims. They are liable if their positive acts directly cause foreseeable physical harm to bystanders.

• Equality Principle: Police are subject to the same ordinary laws of negligence as private (members of the public+private businesses) citizens.( Public would be government and its agencies.)

• Caparo Clarified: The Caparo 3-stage test ("fair, just, and reasonable") should ONLY be used in novel situations, not automatically applied to every negligence case.

Montgomery v Lanarkshire 2015

The ruling that transferred power of medical choice away from doctors to patients. The test now being, would the specific risk actually matter to the patient when making their choice?

Vicarious liability

when the employer is legally liable over the employees fault.

Distinction between “unauthorized mode”

And a “frolic of ones own”

An employer IS liable if an employee performs an authorized

task in a forbidden or negligent manner (unauthorized mode),

but NOT liable if the employee acts completely outside their job scope (a frolic).

Employers right to indemnity

An employer held vicariously liable has a legal right under contract to claim a 100% indemnity (reimbursement) from the negligent employee who breached their implied duty of care.

Bolam test

Outdated medical negligence test changed in 2015

Page v smith 1996

Primary victim test (case) for psychiatric injury that proved if there can be an established duty of care it does not matter if the injury is physical or psychiatric, as long as physical injury was foreseeable, defendant remains liable.

Alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire

Test (case) for proximity element secondary victims of psychiatric injury.

Football stadium incident.

Established a three part test

1.proximity of relationship

2. Proximity in time and space

3. Proximity of perception

What is the sudden ‘shock’ requirement?

There must be a sudden assault on the nervous system and then develop into a sustained mental issue. Cannot start developing ages after the incident. (Not 100% necessary but the general rule)

Immediate aftermath

Witnessing the incident or visiting loved one in hospital is enough to constitute psychiatric injury.

Proximity of perception

Claimant must have witnessed incident with owns unaided senses.

Proximity in time and space

Proximity in time and space requires a claimant suffering psychiatric harm as a secondary victim to be physically present at the scene of the negligent incident or witness its immediate aftermath close in time to when it occurred.

Proximity of relationship

Claimant needs to show close ties of love and affection. This is a sliding scale some relationships are near automatic others require a-lot of evidence.