What is tort? - WRCBusinessManagementWiki2010
... defendant should have regarded as being at risk
though the precise loss/injury/damage actually
suffered by the plaintiff may not have been
foreseeable• all that is required that it was reasonably
foreseeable that the class of people, of whom the
plaintiff was one, could have suffered some
... (a) The answer to this part of the question required an explanation of the
three part test for establishing the existence of a duty of care set out in
the case of Caparo v Dickman , not mere identification. It would
need to have shown, for example that a person in the claimant’s
position shoul ...
... Causation refers to the expression of relationship that must be found to exist b/w D’s
breach and P’s damage to justify the D compensating the P (Snell v. Farrell)
Determine what kind of causation test to apply:
A. “But For” Test (Kauffman; Athey)
Negligence action is established on a balance of pro ...
- UVic LSS
... However, if it is not the same, check whether proximity is still there. If it is NOT analogous, go to the new duty
Crocker: “The common thread running through these cases is that one is under a duty not to place another
person in a position where it is foreseeable that that person could suffer ...
- UVic LSS
... - Duty of care – question of law
- Standard of care – question of fact
- Causation – need a link
- Remoteness – liability won’t apply if the
damage is too remote (legal causation)
Duty of Care
Palsgraf Negligence is about
relationships, not every relationship gives
rise to a DOC
- Onl ...
Y2K AND BEYOND -THE FUTURE OF LAW FOR PROFESSIONALS
... areas should behave, so far as possible, like separate buildings. One obvious purpose was to
prevent the spread of fire. However, when fire broke out, it spread straight over the top of a fire
wall because the builders had failed to complete it. On the far side of the fire wall it did
considerable d ...
Torts analytical frameworks
... - does the scope of risk deem the harm foreseeable?
-if intervening factor, was it foreseeable such that the damage is still
within the scope of risk and therefore D is still proximate cause?
-normally liable only for foreseeable damages, except:
1) unexpectedly large physical injuries (take P as yo ...
Torts Outline - Blogs @ Widener Law
... iii. Duties to protect P from another.
iv. Employer’s liability for employee’s negligence.
i. Whether a duty is owed and the nature of the duty owed. Define duty,
define scope of liability.
ii. General Duty: act as a reasonably prudent person acting under the same or
similar circumstances (RPPS ...
Word - Washington University School of Law
... 2. Plaintiff causation: plaintiff ran into path of firing gun
3. Inevitable action – court would have found in weaver if he
pleaded this, but not enough to say it was against my will.
i. Brown v. Kendall (Shaw) – man injured while friend separating
fighting dogs. Big friend to industry ...
Manaster Torts Outline
... b. Different from the volunteer does step in, finishes his help, but did so
ii. Special relationship with victim exception
1. Special relationships between D and P that may generate affirmative duty of care
2. NOTE: Don’t use this exception without explaining why it exists! ...
I. INTENTIONAL TORTS - Intent - purposefully causing elements of
... - Reckless behavior can be subjective (D knew and did anyway) or objective (D should have known)
- Courts find no “degree of care” based on circum - some circum require greater care when greater risk
- Might require those in pro sports to show reckless conduct rather than merely negligent conduct
Torts Outline - UChicago BLSA
... iii. Wallace v. Rosen: consent assumed for all common and “reasonably
necessary” contact in ordinary life.
i. Negates what would have otherwise been an intentional tort
ii. To whom consent is given
iii. Scope of consent
iv. Info-eliciting: impose liability on who can get info ...
Damages - NYU School of Law
... forward in reliance on the sense of hearing, unaided by that of sight.” Says that
Goodman dictum on driver needing to get out of car has caused confusion:
“Standards of prudent conduct are declared at times by courts, but they are taken
over from the facts of life.”
Hand says there can be no general ...
negligence: the employer`s duties
... Nature and quantum of damages;
Orders as to cost;
For example Liability:
If common law actions is based on the failure to provide a safe system of work, must
prove that the employer “made no genuine and reasonable attempt” to put such a system in
That the event ...
- LSS | Cans DB
... must establish that Maclaren, who was operating the boat, has a duty of care.
In determining this, first question is to see whether there’s a statute here that pertains or
governs the relationship between the parties. Here, there’s a shipping statute that applies,
statutory duty of care that says ca ...
... Shipbuilding [SCC 1997]: P got D to build an oil rig. Negligent wiring caused electrical fire, fucking over rig for months. D wants (and gets) compensation for this,
but third parties fucked. Relational econ loss only recoverable in certain circumstances, incl. a) Claimant has proprietary interest i ...
torts - GW SBA
... to the city. Moch’s warehouse burned down because a sufficient quantity of water was not available to
firefighters. RULE: Third party who is not a party to a contract but benefits from its performance may
not recover for a contracting party's NONfeasance.
intentional torts - NYU School of Law
... 1. imminent force or threat of imminent force, or assertion of
legal authority, that results in confinement, is enough
ii. against ’s will
iii. must be aware of the confinement (but the circuits are split on this)
b. requires complete confinement—“three walls do not a prison make.”
i. Bird v Jone ...
Torts Outline - Washington University School of Law
... 3. Moving party goes to court of common pleas and obtains from them a
rule nisi. In this case it is comparable to an “order to show cause.” It’s
an ex parte motion, one moves in order to show cause and the opponent
does not get to be heard whether the order will issue. An order to the
opposing party ...
Stovin and another (Respondent) v. Norfolk County Council
... care when acting and a duty to take positive action, should not be allowed to
mask the difference between the two duties. As already seen, the test of
fairness and reasonableness is more difficult to satisfy with a duty to act. This
is especially so when the subject matter is potential financial los ...
... 4. Loss of parental consortium in wrongful death - Jordan v Three Rivers Hospital .......19
D. Implied rights of action – like wrongful death statutes, create a right of action that
wouldn’t exist under common law....................................................................................... ...
... legally obliged to take all reasonable steps. “The Pl’s inability to handle the situation in which he or she has
been placed – either through youth, intoxication or other incapacity – is an element in determining how
foreseeable the injury is.”
- Must look at these questions: (1) Did Sundance owe a ...
... No trespass for Δ- he had qualified privilege to stay moored to dock.
Would have had perfect privilege if Δ had not retied boat; however, act of retying boat resulted in
liability for intentional tort.
Complete privilege: Π can’t recover for the harm done b/c Δ had nothing to do with the harm ...
Duty of care in English law
In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.Generally, a duty of care arises where one individual or group undertakes an activity which could reasonably harm another, either physically, mentally, or economically. This includes common activities such as driving (where physical injury may occur), as well as specialised activities such as dispensing reliant economic advice (where economic loss may occur). Where an individual has not created a situation which may cause harm, no duty of care exists to warn others of dangerous situations or prevent harm occurring to them; such acts are known as pure omissions, and liability may only arise where a prior special relationship exists to necessitate them.