Flashcards · 9084 · A Level Topic 4

Law of tort (A Level) flashcards

25 cards on A Level Topic 4, subtopics 4.1 to 4.4. Pick a subtopic or study them all.

Study mode needs JavaScript. Every card is listed below, so you can still cover the answers and test yourself.

All 25 cards

For a quick read-through or printing. Cover the right-hand side to test yourself.

4.1 The tort of negligence

What is the neighbour principle?: From Donoghue v Stevenson (1932): you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour, meaning people so closely and directly affected that you ought to have them in mind.
What is the Caparo test for a duty of care?: Caparo Industries v Dickman (1990): the damage must be reasonably foreseeable, there must be proximity between the parties, and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty.
What is the standard of care in negligence?: The reasonable person in the defendant’s position. A learner driver is judged as a reasonable competent driver (Nettleship v Weston, 1971); a professional against a responsible body of opinion in that profession (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957).
Which risk factors help decide whether there was a breach of duty?: The likelihood of harm (Bolton v Stone, 1951), the seriousness of potential harm, the cost and practicality of precautions (Latimer v AEC, 1953), and the social value of the activity.
How is causation shown in negligence?: By the “but for” test: the harm would not have happened but for the breach. In Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (1969) the patient would have died anyway, so the hospital was not liable.
What is the test for remoteness of damage in negligence?: The type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable (The Wagon Mound (No 1), 1961). If the type is foreseeable, the extent need not be, so the thin skull rule applies (Smith v Leech Brain, 1962).
When can pure economic loss be recovered in negligence?: Generally not (Spartan Steel v Martin, 1973), except for negligent misstatement where there is a special relationship and reasonable reliance (Hedley Byrne v Heller, 1964).
Who can claim for psychiatric injury as a secondary victim?: Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire (1992): a close tie of love and affection with the victim, presence at the event or its immediate aftermath, perception with their own unaided senses, and a recognised psychiatric illness.

4.2 Torts affecting land

What is private nuisance?: An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over or in connection with it. Only someone with an interest in the land can sue (Hunter v Canary Wharf, 1997).
Which factors decide whether an interference is unreasonable in nuisance?: Locality (Sturges v Bridgman, 1879), duration and frequency, sensitivity of the claimant, and malice. Locality does not matter where there is physical damage to property (St Helen’s Smelting v Tipping, 1865).
Is it a defence that the claimant came to the nuisance?: No. In Miller v Jackson (1977) the cricket club was liable in nuisance although it was there first, though an injunction was refused.
What is the rule in Rylands v Fletcher (1868)?: A person who brings onto their land, for a non-natural use, something likely to do mischief if it escapes, is liable for the damage caused if it escapes.
How did Cambridge Water (1994) and Transco (2003) develop Rylands v Fletcher?: Cambridge Water: the type of damage must be foreseeable. Transco v Stockport MBC: the use must be extraordinary and unusual, creating an exceptionally high risk, and the rule does not cover personal injury.
What is trespass to land?: Directly and intentionally entering or remaining on land in the possession of another, or placing objects on it, without lawful justification. It is actionable without proof of damage (Entick v Carrington, 1765).

4.3 Torts affecting the person

What is the tort of assault?: Intentionally or recklessly causing the claimant to reasonably apprehend immediate unlawful force. Words can negate an assault (Tuberville v Savage, 1669).
What is the tort of battery?: The intentional and direct application of unlawful force to another person; the slightest touch can be enough, beyond the ordinary contact of everyday life (Collins v Wilcock, 1984).
What is false imprisonment?: Unlawfully and totally restraining a person’s freedom of movement. Partial restraint is not enough (Bird v Jones, 1845); the claimant need not know they were detained (Meering v Grahame-White Aviation, 1919).
What is the tort in Wilkinson v Downton (1897)?: Intentionally causing physical or psychiatric harm by an act or statement, e.g. a false practical joke that a woman’s husband had been badly injured.
Do trespass to the person torts need proof of damage?: No. Assault, battery and false imprisonment are actionable per se: without proof of any damage.

4.4 General defences and remedies

What is volenti non fit injuria (consent)?: A complete defence where the claimant freely and voluntarily, with full knowledge of the risk, agreed to it. Mere knowledge of a risk is not enough (Smith v Baker, 1891); it succeeded in Morris v Murray (1991).
What is contributory negligence?: A partial defence: where the claimant’s own carelessness contributed to the damage, damages are reduced by the court according to their share of responsibility (Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; Froom v Butcher, 1976, no seat belt).
What is the defence of illegality?: Ex turpi causa: a claimant injured while jointly committing a crime with the defendant may be denied a claim (Pitts v Hunt, 1991).
What is the aim of compensatory damages in tort?: To put the claimant, so far as money can, in the position they would have been in if the tort had not been committed. They may be special (exact losses to trial) or general (pain and suffering, future losses).
When is an injunction granted in tort?: At the court’s discretion, to stop a continuing tort such as a nuisance or trespass. Damages may be awarded instead where an injunction would be unfair, as in Miller v Jackson (1977).
What are the limitation periods for tort claims?: Under the Limitation Act 1980: generally six years from when the cause of action arose, and three years for personal injury claims.