Section 1
Preview this deck
Product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
Front
| 5 | 0 | ||
| 4 | 0 | ||
| 3 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 0 | ||
| 1 | 0 |
Active users
0
All-time users
0
Favorites
0
Last updated
6 years ago
Date created
Mar 1, 2020
Cards (134)
Section 1
(56 cards)
Product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
This is a statutory tort; there is a need to prove damage; the protected interests are personal (death and personal injury) and property (damage to property); the liability is strict and the wrongdoing concerns a defective product.
Hurdles of negligence
Three stages: 1) the existence of a duty of care 2) the breach of that duty by failing to meet the required standard 3) the causation of loss to the claimant as a result of this breach. The burden of proof is on the claimant and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, i.e. more than 50 per cent.
Nettleship v Weston [1971] 2 QB 691
A learner driver crashed into a lamp post injuring the only passenger, a family friend, who was teaching her to drive. The passenger had control of the gearstick and handbrake and the learner driver was steering the car. Passenger sued the learner driver in the tort of negligence. For reasons of consistence and clarity all road users must adhere to the same standard of care irrespective of driving experience, so learner driving found liable in the tort of negligence. Policy consideration: insurance is compulsory for all motorist, so compensation is available for the passenger.
Kent v Griffiths
Follows Caparo. Ambulance service - specific duty to arrive within a reasonable time, and duty owed once emergency call is accepted - here took 40mins to arrive, but also falsified the records to make it look like they arrived sooner and no reasonable explanation given. Ambulance is part of health service so can be distinguished from fire service and police ; Fair, just and reasonableness - Decision is based on operational matters not policy concerns. SERVICE IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE (HERE SERVICE SUED)
corrective justice
right the wrong that has taken place.
s6(3) HRA 1998
Courts are public authorities
neighbour principle
Used in negligence cases to determine whether a duty of care was owed to the person injured. A person must take reasonable care to avoid acts and omissions that can reasonably be foreseen as likely to injure their 'neighbours'; that is, the people who would be closely and directly affected by their acts or omissions
s6(1) HRA 1998,
courts must act compatibly with Convention rights in hearing and deciding the proceedings before them.
Vindication
looks back to the harm that took place by establishing the facts and apportion blame or fault
Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the Social Security Act 1998.
statutory basis for industrial injuries disablement benefits
proximity
Requires a certain type of relationship or connection to exist between the parties and is closely connected to foreseeability of harm. If the claimant is within a class of persons who might reasonably be harmed by the defendant's negligence, the proximity of relationship is usually proven.
first party or loss insurance
individuals manage risk by taking out insurance policies, so that where they suffer personal injury or even death, compensation may be available if all the requirements of the insurance policy have been met.
vicariously liable
A principal is legally responsible for the actions of his or her agent if the agent is acting within the scope of his or her employment- that is, doing what the principal has directed the agent to do. Employers are held liable for the tortious acts of their employees or agents and insurance companies are held liable for the tortious acts of those they insure (s4 Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 or 2010).
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330
Person who, for own purposes, brings onto land/collects and keeps there, anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, keeps it at his peril and is answerable for all damages arising i.e. natural consequences of its escape
plaintiff (before 1999), claimant, pursuer (Scotland)
A person or party filing a lawsuit
Road Traffic Act 1988
Since 1930, all drivers have been required to have insurance in the event of injury to others or their property.
slander
There is a need to prove damage; the protected interest is that of reputation; and the wrongdoing consists of spoken words or gestures which are defamatory (i.e. untrue and with the effect of lowering the reputation of the victim)
'correlative analysis'
Peter Cane: the relationship between the victim of the tortious conduct and the perpetrator or injurer: aim is to understand and explain the law of tort as a system of ethical principles of personal responsibility or, in other words, a system of precepts about how people may, ought and ought not to behave in their dealings with others.
Reynolds v Clarke (1725) 1 Str 634
sets out the distinction between a wrong caused by a direct and forcible action (trespass) and a wrong caused as a consequence of an action (trespass on the case)
Haley v London Electricity Board
Foreseeability of harm, pre-Caparo. Blind man fell down an inadequately covered manhole in London. The plaintiff fell within a class of individuals put at foreseeable risk by the defendant's actions. Higher standard to individuals with uncommon characteristics e.g., the blind.
deterrence
looks at the future, prevent future wrongs
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
government-funded criminal injuries compensation scheme, which compensates blameless victims of crimes of violence.
Donoghue v Stevenson
Establishes tort of negligence as the breach of a duty of care causing damage to the claimant. Also established the (now obsolete) neighbour principle: you must "take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour" establishing a duty of care - the P drank a can of soft drink and found a rotting snail. the P sued the D for Negligence and she was entitled to damages because the relationship of manufacturer and customer should give each party a duty of care.
compensation
makes amend for the wrong, usually achieved by an award of damages (other remedies include an injunction and an order for specific restitution of property).
Adams v Ursell [1913] 1 Ch 269
A fish and chip shop was responsible for the smell of deep fried food in a residential street. Neighbour claimed the tort of nuisance to have it closed down. Held: the interests of ordinary residents trumped those of the owner of the business and its customers.
tortious liability
arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law; this duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for unliquidated damages.
third party or liability insurance
Insurance is compulsory in particular contexts to ensure that compensation is available to injured parties.
the traditional 'legal formulae' approach,
the requirements of different torts are applied to case facts.
Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969
compulsory for employers to have third party insurance, so that compensation is available for their employees in the event of accidents at work or diseases caused by working conditions
battery
The intentional or reckless application of physical force to another person
foreseeable
Necessary to show that the claimant was foreseeable as a victim of the negligence of the defendant. It is not necessary to show that the type and extent of the harm itself was foreseeable
tort, delict (Scotland)
A civil wrong / wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act, called a tortfeasor.
Action for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
This is a statutory tort; there is no need to prove damage; and the standard of liability is constructive knowledge of harassment.
damages in tort
The purpose is to put the claimant in the position they would have been in had the tort not taken place. The loss is shifted from the person injured by the tort to the person who is responsible for it.
negligence
The breach of a legal duty to take care owed by the defendant to the claimant that results in damage, undesired by the defendant, to the claimant.
tortfeasor
One who commits a tort, the legal or natural person whose wrongdoing has caused the tort and when an action is brought, is often the defendant.
Assault
An intentional or reckless act that causes someone to be put in fear of immediate physical harm. Actual physical contact is not necessary
vertical effect' of the HRA 1998 and Convention rights
An individual may make a claim / a public law action against a public authority (s7 HRA 1998) to enforce a convention right, e.g. where it has acted incompatibly with a Convention right (s6 HRA 1998)
Bourhill v Young
Foreseeability of harm, pre-Caparo. Not reasonably foreseeable that a pregnant woman would miscarriage after seeing blood splatter from a motorbike accident. Claimant not a reasonably foreseeable victim of the negligence of the motorcyclist.
'horizontal effect' of Convention rights
When a court is determining liability in tort, due regard must be given to Convention rights, even in proceedings where both parties are private individuals. Convention rights may influence existing torts and existing causes of action
Caparo v Dickman
Threefold test for duty of care: foreseeability of harm; proximity between the parties; fair, just and reasonable to impose duty (last point addition to Donoghue). Caparo purchased shares in a company on reliance of the accounts given by auditors. Made a major loss and claimed against auditors, stating they were negligent in certifying the accounts. Held no DoC - no sufficient proximity between Caparo and auditors since auditors were not aware of the existence of Caparo nor the purpose for which the accounts were being used by them
Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Skyviews & General Ltd [1978] QB 479
D was a business which used aircraft to take aerial photographs of people's homes without their permission. D then offered to sell those photographs to the homeowners. Liable to the homeowners in the tort of trespass to land? Held: rights of an owner to the airspace above their property are restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of their land.
Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council
Follows Caparo. Brought against local authority education departments for failures to diagnose and treat learning difficulties It refused to strike out the claims on the basis of lack of duty, explaining that the policy reasoning in the Bedfordshire case did not lay down any wider presumption of immunity. Local education authorities could be vicariously liable for breaches by educational psychologists and teachers of their duty of care to pupils with special educational needs.
defendant, (Scotland) defender
an individual or group being sued or charged with a crime
Vowles v Evans
Follows Caparo. A referee and player have sufficient proximity, it was foreseeable that if the referee did not enforce the rules there would be injury (that is what the rules are there to prevent).It was just, fair and reasonable to impose a duty of care. There was a structured relationship, the referees acts or omissions were manifestly capable of causing physical harm to others, and in such circumstances the law will normally impose a duty of care. A referee of a game of rugby football owes a duty of care to the players. The court did not consider it logical to draw a distinction between amateur and professional rugby. The referee had breached that duty of care, the referee had been in a position no more than basic skill and competence at that level of the game.
Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875
writ of trespass and writ of trespass on the case abolished
assault
There is no need to prove damage; the wrongdoing causes someone to be put in fear of immediate physical harm (actual physical harm is a different tort); and the protected interest is that of bodily integrity.
Strict liability torts
Do not require a claimant to prove a tortfeasor was at fault. Strict liability is a concept rooted in the notion that the general public benefits when liability is imposed on those who engaged in certain activities that result in harm to another party, even if the activities were undertaken in the most careful manner possible (without negligence). Examples: the action in Rylands v Fletcher, publication of private information and images, product liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, breach of statutory duty, conversion.
M'Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 (HL)
the concept of a duty of care was expanded in a way which addressed the development of (then) modern packaging and distribution methods for consumer goods. Before that the courts had not recognised that a duty to take reasonable care in the manufacturing of products could extend beyond contractual relationships.
Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2004]
no. of Cs contracted mesothelioma due to exposure to asbestos from no. of different employers = breach established. When cannot determine single causative moment when fatal asbestos fibre inhaled, all of series of negligent employers jointly liable
Section 2
(55 cards)
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington
Standard of care: a passer-by was blinded by a splinter of glass from the windscreen of the defendant's car when his dog, which was inside the car, broke the window trying to get out. This was considered by the courts to be a fantastic possibility and not one the defendant should be expected to guard against.
Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales
Victim called police when jealous ex-boyfriend turned up and threatened to kill. Called police- graded as immediate response- but when passed on to local police- call downgraded. Didn't arrive in time. Murder. The police did not owe a common law duty of care in negligence to a specific member of the public where they were aware, or ought reasonably to have been aware, of a threat to her life or physical safety. Nor did they owe such a duty where a member of the public had given them apparently credible evidence that an identifiable third party presented a specific and imminent threat to her life or physical safety
Section 11 Civil Evidence Act 1968
Operates to shift the burden of proof in the negligence action. If the defendant is also prosecuted for their actions which form the basis of the negligence action, the fact of the conviction helps in proving that the defendant was in breach of their duty of care. This is because the standard of proof is greater in a criminal action (beyond reasonable doubt).
Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co
The standard of care expected is that of the reasonable person. "Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or something which a reasonable man would not do."
Kirkham v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester
Exception: where the police have assumed responsibility for someone or someone has been entrusted to their care, the police owe a duty of care to that person. The plaintiff's husband had committed suicide while in a remand centre, the plaintiff had warned the police at time of his arrest of her husband's suicidal tendencies, but the police had negligently failed to pass on this information to the remand authorities. The C of A held that in the light of her husband's clinical depression, he could not be held to have voluntarily accepted the risk. 'Hill immunity' did not apply since there was no negligence in the way investigations were carried out, and the negligence related to the period of time during which Kirkham was in custody when responsibility for his well-being was assumed by the police.
Re Herald of Free Enterprise
Applied Bolitho in a different context. Dangerous way of ferry leaving with end down. Although common practice, this was dangerous and so there was a breach. Common practice won't necessarily justify the taking of risks, as the courts can reject 'expert evidence' and condemn commonly accepted practice as negligent
European Convention on Human Rights: Art 2
Right to life. Breach of Convention rights was considered in the conjoined appeals of Van Colle and Smith. It now seems that a claim for breach of Article 2 by the police may be successful if the high threshold test of a 'direct and immediate threat' to a life is passed.
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis
Exception to no duty of care for omissions. A child walked out of his nursery school and wandered into the road. The plaintiff's husband was killed when he swerved and crashed his lorry to avoid him. A duty of care was owed by the education authority to prevent the child endangering others as it had assumed responsibility for him.
Latimer v AEC Ltd
Relevant factors for breach of duty of care: cost and ease of taking precautions. Reasonable man test, practicality of precautions; heavy rain and sawdust. Factory not shut down when floor was slippery, closing factory too stringent to minor risk. The court will take into account what measures the defendant could have taken to avoid the risk, the cost of them and the ease of implementation.
Gregg v Scott [2005]
claimant had consulted his doctor about a lump under his arm, a cancerous lymphoma which could have been treated at that stage. Action for damages for the reduced chances of a successful recovery. Held: claim failed on an 'all or nothing' approach and rejected the application of the 'loss of a chance' approach, expressly influenced by policy concerns: in medical negligence cases claims for damages could always be reformulated as claims for loss of the chance which would always be bound to succeed. Accordingly, the .
Res ipsa loquitur
the thing speaks for itself. The courts are sometimes prepared to infer a breach of duty if the circumstances of the negligence are such that the breach is clear on the balance of probabilities to have occurred.
Glasgow Corp v Muir
The standard of a Reasonable Person is an objective test: not what the person saw, but what the reasonable person would see in the circumstances: Lord Macmillan. Urn spilled on children whilst being carried down a corridor
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
The courts will consider compliance with common practice in the relevant profession as strong evidence that the defendant is not negligent, however the final decision as to whether behaviour is reasonable is the court's Bolam test: D's practice must be supported by a responsible, reasonable body, not simply a number of other professionals.
Orchard v Lee
Standard of care for children is that of an ordinary, careful & reasonable child of that age - school boy not liable for running into girl playing tag
McWilliams v Sir William Arroll & Co Ltd [1962]
But for - safety belt case. Causation in fact: An employer may not be liable for failing to ensure an employee takes precautions if there is evidence that the employee would not have complied even if the employer had met all his obligations.
Scott v London & St Katherine Docks
Res Ipsa Loquitur - Case Example. The defendant may be liable even if there is no conclusive proof of blame in limited situations. Accident must be the type that does not occur without negligence
Roe v Ministry of Health
Bolam test applied - experiential learning should not be condemned. The defendant's conduct should be considered in relation to the state of knowledge at the time of the event only Courts will not expect defendant to have anticipated future developments in knowledge or practice (We must not look at the 1947 accident with 1954 spectacles(Denning))
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
Where the defendant is professional, the standards are that of the defendant's profession or that of the reasonably competent professional in the circumstance Bolam principle: a professional is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with a practice accepted by a reasonable body within that profession (even if their is a contrary body of opinion)
Nettleship v Weston
Duty owed between driver and passenger (n.b this can be extended to drivers/passengers of other cars). Prima facie liable. Same standard of care expected of all motorists. A girl on her first driving lesson gave her driving instructor whiplash; inexperience could not be used as a defence
Watt v Hertfordshire County Council
Relevant factors for breach of duty of care: The social usefulness of the activity. If the defendant actions are in the public interest or have substantial social utility this may justify the defendant taking greater risks. Fire service used only available vehicle and officer injured as equipment came loose. Risk small and aim of saving life justified that risk.
Knightley v Johns
Novus actus interveniens - 3rd party can break chain - D caused car crash in tunnel, not liable for injury to C who was sent in. NAI only breaks the chain if it is unforeseeable
Osman v UK
ECHR. Police immunity violates Article 6 ECHR. Blanket immunity provided by Hill v. CC Yorkshire constituted a disproportionate restriction on the applicant's right of access to a court or tribunal. The substantive merits of the case could not be argued before a judge.
Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co Ltd
Fair, just and reasonable: Maritime classification society certified ship to sail when it wasn't - vessel lost as sea - no duty - public role of D as non-profit entity might be jeopardised by threat of liability; Lord Lloyd dissented: imposing duty induces such bodies to take due care in surveying vessels
Fair, just and reasonable
Additional requirement imposed by Caparo which was not present in Donoghue. Its addition has enabled the courts to limit new duties of care where, for policy reasons, they do not consider a duty should be imposed. Higher barrier than neighbourhood principle to avoid exposing public services like Firemen, Police, coast guards.
McFarlane v Tayside Health Board
Lord Steyn: 'traveller on the London underground'.
novus actus interveniens
An act or event that breaks the chain of causation to relieve the defendant of liability.
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
'Hill immunity'. Duty of care, proximity - just and reasonable test. Claim made against police force for failing to detain and detect the Yorkshire ripper, which led to the claimant's daughter being his last victim. Police do not owe a duty of care to individuals, only to the public at large. No proximity: murderer not in custody and victim part of a large group of young women. Ruling not on policy, but stated that imposing DOC on the police may lead to the police behaving in a defensive manner and would lead to a waste of resources in defending claims.
Bolton v Stone
Relevant factors for breach of duty of care: likelihood of injury, the degree of risk. If the risk of harm is particularly small, and neglect is reasonable, it is justifiable not to take steps to mitigate. No liability when a woman was hit on the head by a cricket ball on the other side of the fence as sufficient precautions had been taken by D and balls crossed the fence very rarely.
Osman v Ferguson
Obsessed teacher case ( passed on proximity as it was easy to determine child and teacher) they complained multiple times to police. No duty owed by police to targeted family of deranged teacher. Although there was sufficient proximity between police and C's family, the court still applied Hill immunity on the ground of policy.
Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex
Police still did not owe a duty to member of the public even when they were aware of the threat. Deranged ex-lover making threats to former partner- police alerted- didn't do anything- seriously injured. Held: 4:1 no duty. Even though police had all the details and there was only the one person at risk. The majority held that Hill still applied and was justified by general public interest- police were the ones on the ground making decisions and judicial oversight would impede this
Wells v Cooper
A householder attempting DIY. The standard the defendant needed to meet when carrying out carpentry tasks around his home was that of a reasonably competent, amateur carpenter and that standard was met. If, however, the job had been too technical and, therefore, had far exceeded his capability, he would have been negligent in attempting the work which should have been done by a professional carpenter.
European Convention on Human Rights: Art 6
Right to a fair trial. In Osman, the ECHR ruled that the UK had denied the right of Osman to a fair trial. This was departed from in Z v UK, where the court decided that the decision in Hill did not present an immunity which prevented access to a fair trial, but represented the application of policy, being an element of the law of negligence.
Maloco v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd
No duty of care for omissions. The defendant owned a disused cinema where a fire was started by vandals causing damage to the plaintiff's neighbouring property. The court held that no duty of care was owed. The defendant was unaware of previous break-ins and attempts to light fires. The defendant did not have control over the vandals and there was no special relationship.
Z v UK (X v Bedfordshire)
ECHR held no breach of art 6 but a breach of art 3 and 13. Removed blanket immunity from social services and introduced liability to children however not to adults. Where failure by the authorities to protect people from the acts of others was alleged, there should be available to the victim or the victim's family a mechanism for establishing any liability of state officials or bodies for acts or omissions involving the breach of their rights under the Convention.
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969]
factual causation "but for test". Held that although the casualty officer had acted negligently in failing to see and examine her husband, the plaintiff had failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that her husband's death resulted from the defendant's negligence. Even if all care had been taken, the husband would still have died.
Brooks v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
Confirmed that the police do not owe a duty of care to the public at large. No duty to provide assistance or protection to witness. A friend of Stephen Lawrence suffered PTSD after negligent handling of a case and his treatment as a victim. No duty of care on policy grounds following Hill, although proximity established.
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987]
Factual Causation: First way of apply the 'But For' test (standard): 'all or nothing' approach. The Claimant must show on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant caused the harm. Boy fell out of a tree and hurt hip, where was negligence. But there was a 75% chance that the loss (disability) would have occurred even with non-negligent medical treatment. Claimant claimed that 25% was lost - so want 25% of damages. 'claim for damages for loss of a chance'. Claim failed - needed 51%: balance of probabilities. It was found, on the balance of probabilities, that the injury would have occurred in any event without the negligent delay in treatment.
South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd [1997]
Hoffman: [T]he law limits liability to those consequences which are attributable to that which made the act wrongful. It is not enough for a claimant merely to show that the loss or damage has been caused by the conduct of the defendant. The claimant must instead prove that the loss or damage results from wrongful conduct by the defendant - that is to say from a breach by the defendant of the duty of care which the defendant owed to the claimant.
Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing Club
Who is the reasonable man with respect to standard of care? - 'The man on the Clapham omnibus'
European Convention on Human Rights: Art 3
Prohibition of torture. In the case involving the black cab rapist DSD v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, his victims were able to successfully sue the police for damages for a breach of their Article 3 rights.
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
Relevant factors for breach of duty of care: seriousness of consequences, degree of harm. The c was a mechanic who was always blind in one eye, at work he had an accident which caused him to go blind in the other eye because he wasn't given goggles, they were liable, there was a greater duty towards him
Stovin v Wise
Omission. the plaintiff was a motorcyclist injured in a collision with the defendant's car at a junction. The local authority had failed to ensure that the view of the junction was clear by moving a bank of earth and the defendant claimed that the local authority was in part to blame for the accident. The court held that the local authority owed no duty of care to road users to alleviate the danger at the junction. They were not liable for their failure to act.
Miller v Jackson
Relevant factors for breach of duty of care: Risk factor increases standard of care. If the risk of harm is high, steps must be taken to mitigate. Cricket balls frequently landed in claimants garden. Court imposed and a nuisance and granger damages, refused to grant an injunction as playing cricket was for the benefit of the public.
Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong
Omission. No liability 'on the part of one who sees another about to walk over a cliff with his head in the air, and forbears to shout a warning'. So, unless a special relationship existed such as parent to child, there would be no obligation for the bystander to do anything to stop the other walking over the cliff. Neither would a doctor owe a duty for a failure to assist the person who walks off the cliff and lays injured on the ground.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority
1) Inexperienced doctors judged against reasonable competent qualified doctors. Judged by the standard of the reasonable person according to the act - the post held within the team, not according to the actor - the individual levels of expertise. 2) Where there may be multiple, distinct, potential causes which operated in a different way - there were five possible causes each 20% probable to be the true cause of the harm. there must be a material contribution to the damage and a material increase in risk. The plaintiff in Wilsher could not establish which of those causes either caused or contributed to his injury and on that basis the 'but for' test was to be applied.
Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire
Brought under HRA art 2 (right to life) - police aware that witness received threats but did nothing. The House of Lords dismissed the claimants claim. The HoL acknowledged that article 2 of the convention could be violated if the police failed to protect a person from a real and immediate threat to life, but that in this instance, there was an insufficient basis upon which the police could have reached a conclusion that violence would be used
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd
Exception to no duty of care for omissions. The Home Office was held to owe a duty of care to the plaintiffs as property owners in the vicinity of the escape, and Lords Morris and Pearson based their judgments squarely on the obligation of the officers to control the trainees. The plaintiff successfully sued the officers' employer in negligence. A duty of care was owed by the officers because they should have foreseen the harm to the plaintiff's boat when they failed to supervise the youths. There was proximity because the officers had 'control' over the boys and they were, therefore, responsible for their actions.
Mullin v Richards
Where the Defendant is a child, test of reasonable child of the Defendant's age Breach of duty: special characteristics of the defendant, 15 year olds acted as 15 year olds would; play fighting with rulers.
causa sine qua non
Factual causation (latin)
Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria
No blanket immunity for police. They do owe a duty to informers. Duty owed to police informant to keep ID secret, but left file in car and was stolen, and she had breakdown due to stress. The policeman owed a duty of care to C because by providing the information, a relationship of proximity was created between them. Also, policy reasons - citizens should be incentivised to report crime. On the facts of this case, even though duty was owed, D held not to be in breach of this duty.
Section 3
(23 cards)