A-level Law - Tort cases

Caparo (Negligence)

Caparo (Negligence)

1) Harm Foreseeable

2) Proximity of relationship

3) Fair, just and reasonable

Robinson (Negligence)

Existing precedent must be used to establish a duty of care

Wells V Cooper (Negligence)

Reasonable man = ordinary person

Nettleship v Weston (Negligence)

Reasonable learner => competent driver

Mullins V Richards (Negligence)

Reasonable Child => Competent Child of that age

Bolan (Negligence)

Reasonable professional => Does their conduct fall below ordinary standard and would be supported by a body of opinion?

Barnes V Scouts (Negligence)

Likelihood of harm increased due to it being dark

Paris v Stephney Borough

special characteristics => Goggles needed as he had lost an eye

Latimer (Negligence)

Adequate precautions => Sawdust

Day v High Performance Sports (Negligence)

Times of emergency =>Emergency to save struggling climber therefore more risks

Wheat v Lacon (OL 57 + 84)

Occupier can consist of multiple individuals

Premises = The pub

s2 OLA 57

Occupier owes all his visitors a ‘common duty of care’ no matter the visitor and ensure safety for the visitor

Laverton v Kiapasha (OL 57)

Adults = Common duty of care owed

Taylor v Glasgow (OLA 57)

Children = duty measured in accordance to age and must presume children will be less careful

Parents are held accountable for not watching over their to a reasonable standard

Roles v Nathan (OLA 57)

Tradesmen expected to guard against the risks of their trade

Taylor v Glasgow (Warning signs)

There were no warning signs of dangerous berries in the area

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (OLA 84)(Type of visitor)

Paddling in the lake = visitor but diving in and swimming = trespasser

Rhind v Astbury Water Park (OLA 84)

Occupier AWARE of danger?

Clearly indicated that the fibre glass was not known to D

Higgs v Foster (OLA 84)

D aware of possibility that trespasser may be in or come in the vicinity of particular danger?

No grounds to believe trespassers would come in the vicinity of the pit as there had been no other trespassers

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (OLA 84)(DoC)

Should there be reasonable protection provided for the risk, in all circumstances of the case

D put up warning signs + danger was obvious

s1(5) (OLA 84)

Duty can be discharged if:

Reasonable steps have been taken to avoid risk as much as possible

Warning signs have been used in accordance to risk

Sturges v Bridgman (P.N)

Locality and area considered

“What would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”

CRC v KImbolton Fireworks (P.N)

Duration/intensity (P.N)

Did not matter that the fireworks were only temporary

Robinson v Kilvert (P.N)

Sensitivity of claimant

Brown paper was particularly delicate no nuisance

Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett (P.N)

Motive of D

Shooting to cause foxes to not breed = malicious

Interfered with use of land to breed foxes

Miller v Jackson (P.N)

Social benefit

Public benefit of cricket pitch outweighed nuisance caused by cricket balls flying out

Hunter v Canary Wharf (P.N)

Interference with TV reception is not actionable

As well as Interference with light and view

Giles v Walken (RvF)

D had not brought weeds onto land as they were naturally occurring

Transco v Stockport (RvF)

Piping of water to flats was not ‘extra ordinary’ or ‘unusual’

Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather (RvF)

D not liable as the reasonable foreseeability of the risk must be known to D which it was not

Stannard v Gore (RvF)

Tyres did not escape rather the fire did which caused the damage therefore D was not liable

Mohammud v Morrison’s Supermarket PLC (Vicarious)

Employee assaulted customer during course of employment and unbroken chain of events

Yewens v Noakes (Vicarious)

An employee if controlled by the employer

Stevenson and others v MacDonald and Evans (Vicarious)

Work integrated into organisation e.g uniform

Work accessory to organisation e.g independent contractor

Ready Mix Concrete v Minister of Pensions (Vicarious)

1 Skill for wage

2 Employer exercises a degree of control

3 Nothing in terms of the work is inconsistent with employment

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Relationship was ‘sufficiently close’ to an employment relationship

‘akin’ to employment relationships developed

Evaluation of Negligence

1 Duty of care was confusing when using Caparo OTH Robinson developed the law in Caparo

2 Breach of duty law is fair by considering characteristics of D and C OTH Paris v Stephney Borough council did not provide protective equipment as C was vulnerable

3 Risk factors Fair that D judged by common practice and knowledge of the time, especially in medical and scientific areas OTH Reasonable is objective = set own standards which is unfair BOLAM

4 Causation and remedies => ‘But for’ test + Intervening act + ‘Thin skull’ rule OTH Unfair

Evaluation of OLA 57

1 Occupier has capacity to avoid liability by taking steps to avoid injuries OTH disproportionate impact on certain premises like houses and small businesses which could face a great economic burden

2 Leniency with skilled visitors OTH duty of care owed can be onerous and occupiers may be held liable even when they have taken reasonable steps to avoid danger

3 Parents can be held accountable for the supervision of their children OTH Act is difficult for lay people to understand especially with the distinction between invitees and licensees and varying levels of duty owed

4 Occupiers are not held liable for the unsatisfactory work of an independent contractor OTH this Act only applied to lawful visitors leaving trespassers and unlawful visitors without protections OLA 84 now however

Evaluation of Vicarious Liability

1 Fair as provides victim a just and practical remedy as a company can effectively and appropriately compensate OTH Employer may be fixed with liability even though they expressly prohibited the unsafe practice

2 Fair as makes employer take great care in employing and training OTH employer can be liable for mere carelessness of the employees even when they should have used common sense to avoid this carelessness

3 Employer benefits from the work so they should be held accountable for the conduct of their employees OTH Contradicts the basic fault principle as the employer does not commit any crime yet is liable for an offence

4 Employer is best placed to be insured therefore there is appropriate compensation OTH making a system of law based in personal responsibilities doesn’t fit a world dominated by impersonal organisations