on 24-Jul-2016 (Sun)

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability

Question

An employer is not responsible for the wrongful acts of his employee unless such acts are done in the course of employment. Winfield defines the phrase ‘course of employment’ in the following terms: An employee is in the course of employment if the wrongful act is: (3)

Answer

1. expressly or impliedly authorised by the employer; or,
2. incidental to the carrying out of the employee’s proper duties; or,
3. an unauthorised way of doing something authorised by the employer.

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability

Question

An employer is not responsible for the wrongful acts of his employee unless such acts are done in the course of employment. [...] defines the phrase ‘course of employment’ in the following terms: An employee is in the course of employment if the wrongful act is:

1. expressly or impliedly authorised by the employer; or,
2. incidental to the carrying out of the employee’s proper duties; or,
3. an unauthorised way of doing something authorised by the employer.

Answer

Winfield

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

1. the purpose for which the statement was made;
2. the purpose for which the statement was communicated;
3. the relationship between the advisor, advisee and any third party;
4. the size of the class to which the recipient of the advice belongs;
5. the knowledge and experience of the advisee; and
6. whether the statement could be reasonably relied upon.

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

the allocation of resources, available facilities, public and political policy and the analysis of methodology as to achieving a particular aim

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

Hedley Byrne

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

a referee owed a duty of care to the person requesting a reference

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

In short, the task being performed will determine the standard of care imposed. The usual starting point is that [...]. The classic description of the standard of care was given by Alderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781:

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Answer

the defendant must behave as a reasonable man would in all the circumstances

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

In short, the task being performed will determine the standard of care imposed. The usual starting point is that the defendant must behave as a reasonable man would in all the circumstances. The classic description of the standard of care was given by Alderson B in [case]:

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

Answer

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

In short, the task being performed will determine the standard of care imposed. The usual starting point is that the defendant must behave as a reasonable man would in all the circumstances. The classic description of the standard of care was given by Alderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781:

Negligence is [...].

Answer

the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

the standard of what a reasonable person would do

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

is not absolute

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

Etheridge v East Sussex County Council [1999] Ed CR 550

Answer

The claimant, a school teacher, was injured when a basketball, thrown by a pupil, hit her as she was climbing some stairs. Her claim against the school failed as the school had procedures and systems in place to prevent such accidents. The school was not required to give an absolute guarantee for the safety of everyone on the school’s premises.

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

The claimant, a school teacher, was injured when a basketball, thrown by a pupil, hit her as she was climbing some stairs. Her claim against the school failed as the school had procedures and systems in place to prevent such accidents. The school was not required to give an absolute guarantee for the safety of everyone on the school’s premises.

Answer

Etheridge v East Sussex County Council [1999] Ed CR 550

Tags

#breach #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

the school had procedures and systems in place to prevent such accidents

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability

Question

Answer

Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability

Question

Answer

(1) remuneration;
(2) control; and
(3) whether or not the other provisions of the contract are consistent with a contract of service.

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vicarious-liability

Question

Answer

the economic realities, e.g. profits, losses, etc, of the situation are paramount

Tags

#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort

Question

Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party) and conjoined appeal [1987] AC 241

Answer

Facts: Littlewoods owned a disused cinema. The cinema was broken into and a fire started. The question arose as to whether Littlewoods could be liable for an omission to act and failing to prevent the fire. Lord Goff stated:

But liability should only be imposed under this principle in cases where the defender has negligently caused or permitted the creation of a source of danger on his land, and where it is foreseeable that third parties may trespass on his land and spark it off, thereby damaging the pursuer or his property. Moreover, it is not to be forgotten that, in ordinary households in this country, there are nowadays many things which might be described as possible sources of fire if interfered with by third parties, ranging from matches and firelighters to electric irons and gas cookers and even oil-fired central heating systems. These are commonplaces of modern life; and it would be quite wrong if householders were to be held liable in negligence for acting in a socially acceptable manner. No doubt the question whether liability should be imposed on defenders in a case where a source of danger on his land has been sparked off by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, and it would, I think, be wrong for your Lordships' House to anticipate the manner in which the law may develop; but I cannot help thinking that cases where liability will be so imposed are likely to be very rare.
There is another basis on which a defender may be held liable for damage to neighbouring property caused by a fire started on his (the defender's) property by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party. This arises where he has knowledge or means of knowledge that a third party has created or is creating a risk of fire, or indeed has started a fire, on his premises, and then fails to take such steps as are reasonably open to him (in the limited sense explained by Lord Wilberforce in Goldman v Hargrave [1966] 2 All ER 989 at 995–996, [1967] 1 AC 645 at 663–664) to prevent any such fire from damaging neighbouring property. If, for example, an occupier of property has knowledge, or means of knowledge, that intruders are in the habit of trespassing on his property and starting fires there, thereby creating a risk that fire may spread to and damage neighbouring property, a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent such damage may be held to fall on him.

Tags

#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort

Question

Facts: Littlewoods owned a disused cinema. The cinema was broken into and a fire started. The question arose as to whether Littlewoods could be liable for an omission to act and failing to prevent the fire. Lord Goff stated:

But liability should only be imposed under this principle in cases where the defender has negligently caused or permitted the creation of a source of danger on his land, and where it is foreseeable that third parties may trespass on his land and spark it off, thereby damaging the pursuer or his property. Moreover, it is not to be forgotten that, in ordinary households in this country, there are nowadays many things which might be described as possible sources of fire if interfered with by third parties, ranging from matches and firelighters to electric irons and gas cookers and even oil-fired central heating systems. These are commonplaces of modern life; and it would be quite wrong if householders were to be held liable in negligence for acting in a socially acceptable manner. No doubt the question whether liability should be imposed on defenders in a case where a source of danger on his land has been sparked off by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, and it would, I think, be wrong for your Lordships' House to anticipate the manner in which the law may develop; but I cannot help thinking that cases where liability will be so imposed are likely to be very rare.
There is another basis on which a defender may be held liable for damage to neighbouring property caused by a fire started on his (the defender's) property by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party. This arises where he has knowledge or means of knowledge that a third party has created or is creating a risk of fire, or indeed has started a fire, on his premises, and then fails to take such steps as are reasonably open to him (in the limited sense explained by Lord Wilberforce in Goldman v Hargrave [1966] 2 All ER 989 at 995–996, [1967] 1 AC 645 at 663–664) to prevent any such fire from damaging neighbouring property. If, for example, an occupier of property has knowledge, or means of knowledge, that intruders are in the habit of trespassing on his property and starting fires there, thereby creating a risk that fire may spread to and damage neighbouring property, a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent such damage may be held to fall on him.

Answer

Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party) and conjoined appeal [1987] AC 241

Tags

#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort

Question

Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party) and conjoined appeal [1987] AC 241
Facts: Littlewoods owned a disused cinema. The cinema was broken into and a fire started. The question arose as to whether Littlewoods could be liable for an omission to act and failing to prevent the fire. Lord Goff stated:

But liability should only be imposed under this principle in cases where [...]. Moreover, it is not to be forgotten that, in ordinary households in this country, there are nowadays many things which might be described as possible sources of fire if interfered with by third parties, ranging from matches and firelighters to electric irons and gas cookers and even oil-fired central heating systems. These are commonplaces of modern life; and it would be quite wrong if householders were to be held liable in negligence for acting in a socially acceptable manner. No doubt the question whether liability should be imposed on defenders in a case where a source of danger on his land has been sparked off by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, and it would, I think, be wrong for your Lordships' House to anticipate the manner in which the law may develop; but I cannot help thinking that cases where liability will be so imposed are likely to be very rare.
There is another basis on which a defender may be held liable for damage to neighbouring property caused by a fire started on his (the defender's) property by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party. This arises where he has knowledge or means of knowledge that a third party has created or is creating a risk of fire, or indeed has started a fire, on his premises, and then fails to take such steps as are reasonably open to him (in the limited sense explained by Lord Wilberforce in Goldman v Hargrave [1966] 2 All ER 989 at 995–996, [1967] 1 AC 645 at 663–664) to prevent any such fire from damaging neighbouring property. If, for example, an occupier of property has knowledge, or means of knowledge, that intruders are in the habit of trespassing on his property and starting fires there, thereby creating a risk that fire may spread to and damage neighbouring property, a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent such damage may be held to fall on him.

Answer

the defender has negligently caused or permitted the creation of a source of danger on his land, and where it is foreseeable that third parties may trespass on his land and spark it off, thereby damaging the pursuer or his property

Tags

#cases #duty-of-care #negligence #tort

Question

Smith and Others v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd (Chief Constable, Fife Constabulary, third party) and conjoined appeal [1987] AC 241
Facts: Littlewoods owned a disused cinema. The cinema was broken into and a fire started. The question arose as to whether Littlewoods could be liable for an omission to act and failing to prevent the fire. Lord Goff stated:

But liability should only be imposed under this principle in cases where the defender has negligently caused or permitted the creation of a source of danger on his land, and where it is foreseeable that third parties may trespass on his land and spark it off, thereby damaging the pursuer or his property. Moreover, it is not to be forgotten that, in ordinary households in this country, there are nowadays many things which might be described as possible sources of fire if interfered with by third parties, ranging from matches and firelighters to electric irons and gas cookers and even oil-fired central heating systems. These are commonplaces of modern life; and it would be quite wrong if householders were to be held liable in negligence for acting in a socially acceptable manner. No doubt the question whether liability should be imposed on defenders in a case where a source of danger on his land has been sparked off by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party is a question to be decided on the facts of each case, and it would, I think, be wrong for your Lordships' House to anticipate the manner in which the law may develop; but I cannot help thinking that cases where liability will be so imposed are likely to be very rare.
There is another basis on which a defender may be held liable for damage to neighbouring property caused by a fire started on his (the defender's) property by the deliberate wrongdoing of a third party. This arises where [...]. If, for example, an occupier of property has knowledge, or means of knowledge, that intruders are in the habit of trespassing on his property and starting fires there, thereby creating a risk that fire may spread to and damage neighbouring property, a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent such damage may be held to fall on him.

Answer

he has knowledge or means of knowledge that a third party has created or is creating a risk of fire, or indeed has started a fire, on his premises, and then fails to take such steps as are reasonably open to him (in the limited sense explained by Lord Wilberforce in Goldman v Hargrave [1966] 2 All ER 989 at 995–996, [1967] 1 AC 645 at 663–664) to prevent any such fire from damaging neighbouring property

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Negligence requires proof of a number of elements before a claim is successful. These are: (6)

Answer

1. Loss or damage of a recognised kind sustained by the claimant
2. The existence of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the claimant; and,
3. Breach of that duty by the defendant;
4. Proof that the breach caused the damage;
5. Proof that the damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable. i.e. not too remote
6. Finally, defences: Does the defendant have one or more valid defences to the cliam?

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Murphy v Brentwood

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

they could find a suitable factual precedent to base it on

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 1134

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

immediate medical attention should have been available at the ringside was upheld

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

The injury was foreseeable, the boxing licensing system meant there was close proximity and it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Hall (Arthur J.S.) & Co. v Simons [2000] 3 WLR 543, 3 All ER 673

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

advocate immunity could no longer stand in civil cases and (by a majority) in criminal cases

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Where the accused still stands convicted of the offence, any attempt to challenge the competence of the advocate will generally fail

Answer

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 2 All ER 985

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 2 All ER 985

Answer

Here the police had negligently fired a canister of CS gas into the plaintiff’s shop, which was under siege, without taking adequate precautions against the high risk of fire. When a fire occurred, the plaintiff was successful in his claim against the police, as this was a negligent operational act.

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Here the police had negligently fired a canister of CS gas into the plaintiff’s shop, which was under siege, without taking adequate precautions against the high risk of fire. When a fire occurred, the plaintiff was successful in his claim against the police, as this was a negligent operational act.

Answer

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 2 All ER 985

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

this was a negligent operational act

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucester [1999] 1 All ER 215

Answer

Here the plaintiff had been a lay witness to a police interview; a requirement under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. She had sat in on several interviews with Frederick West (a suspect accused of a series of murders). As a result of this she had suffered Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome. In her claim, she stated that the police had owed her a duty of care to inform her of the disturbing nature of the case. The Court of Appeal dismissed her claim. The sort of person who could act as a lay witness was very wide and it would impose too onerous a burden on the police force to psychologically test every person who could potentially hold such a position.

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Here the plaintiff had been a lay witness to a police interview; a requirement under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. She had sat in on several interviews with Frederick West (a suspect accused of a series of murders). As a result of this she had suffered Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome. In her claim, she stated that the police had owed her a duty of care to inform her of the disturbing nature of the case. The Court of Appeal dismissed her claim. The sort of person who could act as a lay witness was very wide and it would impose too onerous a burden on the police force to psychologically test every person who could potentially hold such a position.

Answer

Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucester [1999] 1 All ER 215

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

The sort of person who could act as a lay witness was very wide and it would impose too onerous a burden on the police force to psychologically test every person who could potentially hold such a position

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2012] EWCA Civ 981

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

the victim was stabbed by her former husband having called the police who failed to categorise her call appropriately

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

did not, in itself, give rise to the requisite degree of proximity and it, therefore, followed that the fire brigade was under no duty to attend to the fires in the first place

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146

Answer

The defendant left a horse unattended and untethered in a busy street. When the horse bolted, a policeman was injured in the act of bringing the horse to a halt, which he did to prevent injury occurring to other users of the street. He was able to recover damages, as the necessity of his act in affecting a ‘rescue’ was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence.

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

The defendant left a horse unattended and untethered in a busy street. When the horse bolted, a policeman was injured in the act of bringing the horse to a halt, which he did to prevent injury occurring to other users of the street. He was able to recover damages, as the necessity of his act in affecting a ‘rescue’ was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence.

Answer

Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

the necessity of his act in affecting a ‘rescue’ was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Cutler v United Dairies Ltd [1933] 2 KB 297

Answer

The plaintiff was injured trying to recapture a horse which had bolted and had come to a rest in a field. As there was no risk to either person or property he was not acting in an emergency and, therefore, he could not be regarded as a rescuer. As such, the claim failed.

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

The plaintiff was injured trying to recapture a horse which had bolted and had come to a rest in a field. As there was no risk to either person or property he was not acting in an emergency and, therefore, he could not be regarded as a rescuer. As such, the claim failed.

Answer

Cutler v United Dairies Ltd [1933] 2 KB 297

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

there was no risk to either person or property he was not acting in an emergency and, therefore, he could not be regarded as a rescuer

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Baker v T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 3 All ER 225

Answer

A doctor was held to be a rescuer when trying to save some workman trapped down a mine.

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

A doctor was held to be a rescuer when trying to save some workman trapped down a mine.

Answer

Baker v T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd [1959] 3 All ER 225

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999] 1 All ER 550

Answer

The employer police force owed a duty of care to one of their officers, the claimant, who was attacked by a prisoner whilst a fellow officer failed to assist

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

The employer police force owed a duty of care to one of their officers, the claimant, who was attacked by a prisoner whilst a fellow officer failed to assist

Answer

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1999] 1 All ER 550

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

still impose a positive duty to act in order to mitigate the danger

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

actually creates a dangerous situation (even though it was no fault of his own)

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Everett v Comojo [2011] EWCA Civ 13.

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

nightclub management and their guests

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

creates or allows the creation of a danger and the claimant is injured as a result

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

may be liable even though it was a third party’s action that actually caused the damage in question

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

knows, or ought to know, of a danger on their property created by a third party

Tags

#duty #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

anyone who is subsequently damaged as a result of the said danger

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

the plaintiff could have worked harder once the power was restored or that they could have had their own generator or insurance to cover such occurrences

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

Spartan Steel

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

they have no proprietary interest

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

the loss will again be categorised as pure economic loss

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

the cost of repairing an inherently defective item

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

pure economic loss

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520

Answer

The plaintiffs in this case had had a factory constructed by a building firm. The plaintiffs had made it clear that because of the kind of machinery they were going to be using, they required special flooring and they recommended suitable flooring contractors. The floor was laid by these contractors but was found to be defective. The plaintiffs bought an action against the flooring sub-contractors for the defect in the flooring and subsequent delay in initiating production. This was despite there being no threat to health and safety, nor any risk to the actual fabric of the building. The House of Lords allowed the claim. There was a duty of care because there had been ‘assumed responsibility’ and ‘reasonable reliance’ between the parties. As Lord Roskill stated the relationship between the parties was ‘almost as close a commercial relationship… as it is possible to envisage short of privity of contract’.

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The plaintiffs in this case had had a factory constructed by a building firm. The plaintiffs had made it clear that because of the kind of machinery they were going to be using, they required special flooring and they recommended suitable flooring contractors. The floor was laid by these contractors but was found to be defective. The plaintiffs bought an action against the flooring sub-contractors for the defect in the flooring and subsequent delay in initiating production. This was despite there being no threat to health and safety, nor any risk to the actual fabric of the building. The House of Lords allowed the claim. There was a duty of care because there had been ‘assumed responsibility’ and ‘reasonable reliance’ between the parties. As Lord Roskill stated the relationship between the parties was ‘almost as close a commercial relationship… as it is possible to envisage short of privity of contract’.

Answer

Junior Books v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] AC 520

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465: Recovery for negligent misstatement is only possible if [...]. If these tests are satisfied then all the losses flowing from the misstatement are recoverable, including any pure economic loss that has been incurred. This case is of increasing importance, given the recent tendency of the courts to restrict the ambit of the other exceptions.

Answer

there is found to be a special relationship between the parties and reasonable reliance by the claimant upon the defendant’s words

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465: Recovery for negligent misstatement is only possible if there is found to be a special relationship between the parties and reasonable reliance by the claimant upon the defendant’s words. If these tests are satisfied then [...]. This case is of increasing importance, given the recent tendency of the courts to restrict the ambit of the other exceptions.

Answer

all the losses flowing from the misstatement are recoverable, including any pure economic loss that has been incurred

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] AC 465

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

Ross v Caunters [1980] Ch 297

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

foreseeable pure economic loss

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

[ case ] raised two other possible situations where pure economic loss might be recovered, though these are obiter comments.

1. Adjoining Occupiers – if the latent defect in the claimant’s property is posing a threat to a neighbour’s land or property, then the costs of repairs may be recoverable. Such actions are usually in nuisance rather then negligence.

2. Complex Structure Theory – where a sub-contractor has installed a defective part of the premises that has caused damage to the rest of the building, Lord Bridge suggested that the other part of the building affected could be regarded as ‘other property’ and, therefore, recovery would be possible on the basis of normal principles of physical damage and economic loss consequent upon physical damage. The theory itself originated in D & F Estates Ltd (see 5.4.3). The possible application of this theory was discussed in Jacobs v Moreton (1996) 72 BLR 92, Current Law, February 1996 180.

Answer

Murphy v Brentwood

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

solicitors incorrectly drafting wills so as to deny potential beneficiaries receiving inheritance

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

there is a ‘special relationship’

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

a third party for pure economic loss

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

specific advice was given for a specific purpose

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 830

Answer

The plaintiffs took a franchise from a company set up by the second defendant. The failure of the second defendant to assume responsibility in respect of this franchise, via contact or personal dealings of a direct or indirect nature with the plaintiff, led the House of Lords to conclude that there was no special relationship between the claimant and the second defendant.

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The plaintiffs took a franchise from a company set up by the second defendant. The failure of the second defendant to assume responsibility in respect of this franchise, via contact or personal dealings of a direct or indirect nature with the plaintiff, led the House of Lords to conclude that there was no special relationship between the claimant and the second defendant.

Answer

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 830

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

there was no special relationship between the claimant and the second defendant

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

failure of the second defendant to assume responsibility in respect of this franchise, via contact or personal dealings of a direct or indirect nature with the plaintiff

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Answer

the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates [...]. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section [...] of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

2

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section [...] makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

1(3)

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that [...]. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s [...] any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

2(1)

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) [...]. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s [...]). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

2(2)

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must [...] (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

satisfy the test of reasonableness

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on [...] (see s 11 and Sch 2).

Answer

all the circumstances of the case

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The case of Smith v Eric S. Bush [1989] 2 WLR 790 makes it clear that any attempt to rely on a disclaimer of responsibility will now be subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Section 2 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 regulates attempts to restrict or exclude negligence liability. Section 1(3) makes it clear that this section only applies to defendants acting in the course of business. By virtue of s 2(1) any purported disclaimer of responsibility for negligence is invalid in so far as it tries to limit, exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury. In relation to other negligently caused damage, the disclaimer must satisfy the test of reasonableness (s 2(2)). What is reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see s [...]).

Answer

11 and Sch 2

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

Ministry of Housing v Sharp CA [1970] 2 QB 223

Answer

The defendants negligently omitted to tell X, a purchaser of land, about the plaintiff’s charge on the land. This meant that X was not bound by the charge and so the plaintiffs suffered financial loss. This loss was as a result of the defendant’s careless statement to X, which X relied on, causing the plaintiff to suffer loss. The court awarded compensation as the defendant had breached a statutory duty that was designed to protect the plaintiff.

Tags

#law #negligence #pel #tort

Question

The defendants negligently omitted to tell X, a purchaser of land, about the plaintiff’s charge on the land. This meant that X was not bound by the charge and so the plaintiffs suffered financial loss. This loss was as a result of the defendant’s careless statement to X, which X relied on, causing the plaintiff to suffer loss. The court awarded compensation as the defendant had breached a statutory duty that was designed to protect the plaintiff.

Answer

Ministry of Housing v Sharp CA [1970] 2 QB 223

Tags

#defences #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

Platform Home Loan Ltd v Oyston Shipways Ltd & Others [1998] Ch 466

Tags

#defences #law #negligence #tort

Question

Answer

applies the defence of contributory negligence to pure economic loss

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

not generally liable for torts committed by them in the course of their work

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

take appropriate precautions, including obtaining professional indemnity insurance

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

Rowe v Herman [1997] 1 WLR 1390

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

such activity is outside the course of employment

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

cases involving an employee’s criminal activities when determining if they are within the course of employment

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

he is on a frolic of his own

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

new and independent journey that has nothing to do with his employment

Tags

#law #negligence #tort #vl

Question

Answer

not covered by vicarious liability