This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the law on standard of care and breach of duty. To establish that the duty of care has been breached, the standard of care must first be found and then it must be decided if that standard was reached in the circumstances. The general standard of care is objective: the ‘reasonable person’ standard. Variations in the standard of care regarding children and the more skilled or professional are discussed, as are those pertaining to sport and the medical profession. Proof of breach must be established by the claimant on the balance of probabilities; occasionally with the benefit of the evidential tool of res ipsa loquitur.
Chapter
8. Causation
Intervening acts and remoteness
This chapter discusses the law on intervening acts and remoteness. There are a range of situations in which the defendant’s act can be a cause of the claimant’s loss because it satisfies the ‘but-for’ test. However, this is followed by one or more events which contribute to the eventual damage in such a way that the chain of causation can be broken. This is sometimes referred to as an intervening act (or novus actus interveniens), and such acts can be divided into three categories: actions by the claimant himself, actions by a third party, and natural events. Remoteness is a simpler way of describing what is also known as causation in law, and is concerned with the extent of a defendant’s duty. The key case is The Wagon Mound (No 1) where the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage was adopted.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the law on causation in fact. This is a matter of historical fact and can be addressed initially by the ‘but-for’ test. However, the but-for test is inadequate to establish causation in a number of different situations: unknown causes, cumulative causes, and consecutive causes and those in which the test produces an illogical or unjust outcome. It is an area in which recent policy-driven decisions have revived the approach of ‘material increase in risk’, as in the asbestos case of Fairchild v Glenhaven. Allocation of liability has been addressed in the Compensation Act 2006, s 3.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the law on causation in fact. This is a matter of historical fact and can be addressed initially by the ‘but-for’ test. However, the but-for test is inadequate to establish causation in a number of different situations: unknown causes, cumulative causes, and consecutive causes and those in which the test produces an illogical or unjust outcome. It is an area in which recent policy-driven decisions have revived the approach of ‘material increase in risk’, as in the asbestos case of Fairchild v Glenhaven. Allocation of liability has been addressed in the Compensation Act 2006, s 3.
Chapter
This chapter discusses the law on intervening acts and remoteness. There are a range of situations in which the defendant’s act can be a cause of the claimant’s loss because it satisfies the ‘but-for’ test. However, this is followed by one or more events which contribute to the eventual damage in such a way that the chain of causation can be broken. This is sometimes referred to as an intervening act (or novus actus interveniens), and such acts can be divided into three categories: actions by the claimant himself, actions by a third party, and natural events. Remoteness is a simpler way of describing what is also known as causation in law, and is concerned with the extent of a defendant’s duty. The key case is The Wagon Mound No 1 where the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage was adopted.
Book
Karen Dyer and Anil Balan
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. Concentrate Questions and Answers Tort Law aims to provide the skills for success in exams in this area of law. It starts off by looking at negligence in terms of duty of care, breach of duty and causation and remoteness of damage. It then looks at employers’ liability and vicarious liability. It also considers product and occupiers liabilities. It examines intentional torts. It looks at the case Rylands v Fletcher. General defences and damages are also considered. Finally, it provides mix topic questions and looks at coursework assessments.
Chapter
Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the issue of damages, covering key debates, sample questions, diagram answer plan, tips for getting extra marks, and online resources. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the primary purpose behind an award of damages; the different types of damages; the three principal types of damage for which a remedy may be available: personal injury (death and psychiatric harm included), property damage, economic loss; and how to calculate an award (in principle).
Chapter
This chapter presents the tort of defamation. The tort is divided into two causes of action: libel, which concerns communications in permanent form; and slander, which concerns communications in transitory form. Libel has been actionable without proof of damage although serious harm is now a factor. Slander is actionable only with proof of damage except in two exceptional situations. The claimant must establish a defamatory statement, referring to the claimant and its publication. The primary defence to defamation is truth, and defences in this field raise issues under art 10 European Convention on Human Rights. The Defamation Acts 1996 and 2013 are covered, as are remedies for defamation.
Chapter
This chapter presents the tort of defamation. The tort is divided into two causes of action: libel, which concerns communications in permanent form; and slander, which concerns communications in transitory form. Libel has been actionable without proof of damage although serious harm is now a factor. Slander is actionable only with proof of damage except in two exceptional situations. The claimant must establish a defamatory statement, referring to the claimant and its publication. The primary defence to defamation is truth, and defences in this field raise issues under art 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Defamation Acts 1996 and 2013 are covered, as are remedies for defamation.
Chapter
Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. To answer questions on defamation, students need to understand the following: categories of defamation: libel and slander; what constitutes a defamatory statement: innuendo; defences to defamation: absolute privilege and qualified privilege; the Defamation Act 2013; and offer of amends, Defamation Act 1996 sections 2–4. To answer questions on privacy, students need to understand the following: the nature of privacy; the overlap between the torts of misuse of private information, and other causes of action; trespass; negligence; the Human Rights Act 1998; and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
Chapter
This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.
Chapter
This chapter first discusses the defence of contributory negligence, voluntary assumption of risk, and illegality. Contributory negligence occurs when the claimant has contributed to his own damage, and permits damages to be apportioned according to what is just and equitable. Voluntary assumption of risk is a complete defence, on the basis that the claimant freely agreed to run the risk of damage. Illegality is a complete defence, on the grounds that the law will not reward or appear to condone an illegal act. The chapter then turns to limitation periods, which restrict the amount of time within which legal actions must be commenced. The main statute is the Limitation Act 1980.
Chapter
3. Duty of care
Further issues
This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.
Chapter
This chapter discusses areas in which the existence of a duty of care is problematic, particularly raising policy reasons for not imposing negligence liability in certain situations. Duty of care is often absent in the case of omissions, that is, when damage resulted from the defendant’s lack of action, rather than directly from a positive act. When the defendant is a public body, concern about operational discretion and financial implications may make it undesirable to impose a duty of care. There is a focus on negligence claims against the police. Duties to the unborn child are included.
Chapter
This chapter discusses both common law and statute on employers’ liability and vicarious liability. Employers’ liability is concerned with the employer’s personal, non-delegable duty in respect of the physical and psychological safety of his employees. This was established in Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English (1938) and is reinforced by the statutory requirement that employers have compulsory insurance. Vicarious liability involves the employer being liable to a third party for the tort of his employee. This must occur in the course of employment, a concept which was redefined in Lister v Hesley Hall (2002). The employment relationship has been re-examined in the light of institutional child abuse cases.
Chapter
This chapter discusses both common law and statute on employers’ liability and vicarious liability. Employers’ liability is concerned with the employer’s personal, non-delegable duty in respect of the physical and psychological safety of his employees. This was established in Wilsons and Clyde Coal v English (1938) and is reinforced by the statutory requirement that employers have compulsory insurance. Vicarious liability involves the employer being liable to a third party for the tort of his employee. This must occur in the course of employment, a concept which was redefined in Lister v Hesley Hall (2002). The employment relationship has been re-examined in the light of institutional child abuse cases.
Chapter
Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the law on employers’ liability and vicarious liability. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: tort of negligence; statutory duties, and the effect of breach of statutory duty; the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969; vicarious liability, and specifically The Catholic Child Welfare Society and others v Various Claimants and The Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools [2012] UKSC 56; and defences to negligence.
Chapter
Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses ways to achieve a good grade for a law exam. The basis for a good grade in tort law is a detailed understanding of the law of tort and developing a systematic approach to using one’s knowledge of law to answer examination questions. The preparations for success include attending all lectures and seminars/tutorials; reviewing previous exam papers; start revising early; and being aware of the date, time, and venue of the exam.
Chapter
Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan
Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses general defences, covering key debates, sample questions, diagram answer plan, tips for getting extra marks, and online resources. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the concept of negligence; the Occupier’s Liability Acts; the defence of volenti non fit injuria; the defence of contributory negligence and the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945; and the defence of illegality—ex turpi causa non oritur action.
