Preview 5 out of 38 Flashcards
What steps should be taken in establishing whether there is a duty of care?
What steps should be taken in establishing whether there is a duty of care?
Consider: is it an established duty situation? If not, can an incremental step be taken? If not, can the Caparo requirements be fulfilled?
Which of the following public authorities may be liable for omissions: regulatory bodies; armed forces; police; local authority landlord; highway authorities; educational bodies; health bodies; fire service; social workers; prison officers; probation service.
Which of the following public authorities may be liable for omissions: regulatory bodies; armed forc...
Regulatory bodies: more likely where there is narrow liability e.g. Sebry v Companies House, rather than indeterminate liability or more public interests e.g. Furnell v Flaherty
Armed forces: may be a duty away from the battlefield but not concerning 'heat of the moment decisions' (Smith v MoD)
Police: may be a duty in certain situations e.g. traffic duties (Knightly v Johns) but not in general execution of police duties (Hill, Robinson)
LA landlord: generally no duty to protect(e.g. Mitchell v Glasgow CC) although could be if assumed responsibility in some way, or could be occupier's liability
Highway authorities: generally no duty to provide certain benefits (e.g Gorringe v Calderdale) although have statutory duties under the Highways Act
Health bodies: duty owed at point of call by ambulance services (Kent v Griffiths) and hospitals can be held vicariously liable for the actions of doctors
Fire service: no general duty to prevent damage (Capital & Counties)
Social workers: gen. duty towards children (Barrett v Enfield) but not adults (Sullivan v Moody)
Prison officers: general duty if assumed responsibility (Dorset Yacht)
Probation service: arguable but not generally responsible for actions of TPs
What is the test for remoteness of damage?
What is the test for remoteness of damage?
Remoteness of damage (as is Simmons v British Steel: 
(1)	Not liable for consequences not reasonably foreseeable
(2)	Not necessarily liable for all damage that was reasonably foreseeable (i.e. novus actus interveniens)
(3)	May be liable for damage going beyond the foreseeable
(4)	Must take victim as he finds him
(5)	Liable for any personal injury that is reasonably foreseeable. 
As per The Wagon Mound No. 1, the type or kind of damage must be foreseeable.
What 5 elements are needed to show an assault?
What 5 elements are needed to show an assault?
An act (may include words)
Reasonable apprehension of unlawful force
Immediacy
Intentional and direct force
Unlawful force
Who may sue in a claim for a) public, and b) private, nusiance?
Who may sue in a claim for a) public, and b) private, nusiance?
a) A 'class of the public'
b) Either a person with legal rights under a servitude, person with legal interest in the affected land, or person in actual exclusive possession