2613086
Descripción
Fichas por Michaela Seal, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Michaela Seal
hace más de 9 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| purpose of tort law | to provide remedies for people who suffer certian kinds of harm or injury at the hands of others in certain circumstances |
| intentional torts | -trespass -assault and battery -false imprisonment -defamation (slander and libel) -deceit, fraud, misrepresentation |
| negligence | -duty of care -standard of care -factual causation -legal causation -damages |
| strict liability | -release of dangerous substances -nuisance |
| trespass | -trespass to real property (trespassers still owed duty of care) -trespass to chattels |
| assault | intentionally creating in another person a comprehension of harm |
| battery | "the least touching of another without consent" |
| false imprisonment | -intentionally totally restraining (physical or threat) the movement of another without lawful justification -PLAINTIFF must prove confinement -defendant must then prove there was lawful justification |
| defamation | -a false statement which tends to damage a person's reputation -slander: verbal statements -libel: published written statements |
| defamation defences | -"it's the truth" -parliamentary privilege |
| misrepresentation | -a false statement of facts (not mere silence) -may give rise to other torts such as negligence or assault -may give rise to breach of contract -may be different tort - deceit -may also lead to criminal liability |
| negligence - duty of care | -was there a duty of care owed to the plaintiff? -were person's injuries reasonably foreseeable due to actions or inactions? (degree of proximity, risk of injury, possible seriousness of injury) -neighbour principle -generally no duty of care to take affirmative action to help -responsibility for drunken injuries if excessive alcohol served |
| Donoghue v Stephenson | -snail in bottle case -extended neighbour principle from manufacturers to consumers |
| negligence - standard of care | -reasonable standard of care in circumstances -if defendant acted reasonably, there is no liability even if plaintiff injured -standard: "ordinary man of reasonable prudence" (if defendant has particular knowledge, this will be taken into factor) -gravity of risk weighed against utility of conduct |
| negligence - factual causation | -"But for" test -material contribution test - did defendant's conduct materially contribute to plaintiff's injury? |
| negligence - legal causation | -were damages suffered by plaintiff reasonably foreseeable? -are there public policy reasons not to impose legal liability? -did plaintiff consent to risk (eg sports) |
| negligence - damages | -plaintiff mus prove that they suffered damages -compensatory damages (physical damages, psychological damages, economic damages) -plaintiff's contributory negligence can reduce amount of damages awarded -punitive damages |
| nuisance | -interference with an occupier's interest in beneficial use of land -interference: substantial and unreasonable annoyance or discomfort (social utility of defendant's conduct, oversensitivity of plaintiff) -remedies: damages or court order to stop |
| release of animals/dangerous substances | -Ryland v Fletcher -strict liability for escape of animals or dangerous substances -reasonable care is not defence, but must prove damages |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.