8919632
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von JACK MITCHELL, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von JACK MITCHELL
vor mehr als 7 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| what is the current approach of duty of care? | Caparo - 'incremental approach'. If novel claims, we follow the 3 stage test: 1) reasonably foreseeable 2) proximity of relationship 3) fair, just and reasonable |
| What three ways can you restrict claims? | 1) Omissions 2)Public Bodies 3) Psychiatric harm |
| What is the general rule of omissions and what case did this come from? | The general rule is that there is no duty to act to prevent harm, and this was held in AG v HK. |
| Barrett v MoD | once a responsibility is assumed, a duty of care arises. |
| Stansible v Troman | No duty to prevent a third party from causing harm, unless responsibility is assumed. |
| Mitchell v Glasgow | No duty to warn others of a criminal act unless responsibility is assumed |
| Home Office v Dorset | Duty only arises in circumstances relating to the relationship. |
| What are the two public body cases and what do they tell us about duty of care? | Hill - police have no duty to protect public from crime. Smith - no duty, even when police fail to respond to a specific threat. |
| If someone dies shortly after physical injury they can claim for psychiatric harm but the length of time is crucial (2 cases)? | Hicks - 30 minutes is too short Roberts - 4 days is sufficient. |
| pure psychiatric harm | Mcloughlin - harm must be a positive psychiatric illness Nicholls - anxiety is not sufficient |
| what does the case of Delieu tell us? | that the claimant must have been in the physical zone of danger |
| Page v Smith? | provided some personal injury was foreseeable, duty arises. |
| Grieves? | harm must be as a result of an event, not fear of it. |
| MacFarlane? | the duty of care can arise if: 1) Claimant's fear of danger is genuine 2) a person of ordinary fortitude would suffer psychiatric harm. |
| Secondary victims - shock? | Sion v Hampstead - psychiatric harm must be included by shock (2 weeks not sufficient). Walters - 36 hours held as sufficient Berisha - 36 hours held as insufficient, had warning. |
| secondary victims - foreseeability? | Bourhill - psychiatric harm must have been foreseeable to a person of normal ordinary fortitude. |
| secondary victims - proximity? | Alcock - close tie of love and affection McLoughin - must witness or come upon the immediate aftermath of the event (1 hour) whereas in Alcock 9 hours insufficient. Palmer - claimant must experience event first hand. Alcock - TV broadcast is insufficient unless loved on is injured. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.