Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

tort, remedies - Coggle Diagram

- - - - % of fault by C determined by court and proportional damages awarded - apportionment - Nettleship
      - Braman - where C partly to blame
      - Butcher - C's conduct made injuries/losses worse
      - C's behaviour contributed to the loss (damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence)
      - C's own behaviour fell below the standard of the reasonable person
    - - he who consents cannot be regarded as having been done an injury
      - applies when C knows there's a risk of D acting negligently and freely consents to that risk
      - Morris v Murray - C knew D would be neligent
      - Haynes v Harwood - C had duty to help so consent not freely given
      - Smith v Baker - consent must be voluntary
    - - offensive to allow C to benefit from wrongdoing
      - Patel v Mizra
  - - - foreseeability
        
        damage foreseeability - Kent v Griffiths - reasonable person in D's position - objective
        
        reasonable person - Haley v LEB
        
        wife of employee inhaling asbestos, family members - Harland & Wolff
      - proximity
        
        Bourhill v Young - miscarriage lacked proximity
        
        McLoughlin v O'Brien - saw family in hospital
        
        proximity - space/time/relationship
        
        Alcock v CC of S Yorkshire - if only psychiatric must be a distinction between primary and secondary victims
        
        primary - at the event Page v Smith - reasonably foreseeable to suffer 'some' injury, injury not shock
      - reasonable to impose duty
        
        Capital & Counties plc v Hampshire CC - f/j/r for fire brigade to owe duty of care if positive act worsened the situation
        
        fair/just/reasonable - Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police - not f/j/r for police to owe duty of care to victims of crime
        
        Robinson v CC of W Yorkshire Police - cops not immune from negligence liability
        
        White v CC of S Yorkshire - employer has duty of care against physical harm but not psychiatric if no phys
  - - - objective test - Glasgow v Muir
        
        Mullins v Richards - reasonably competent 15 year old not adult
        
        mental capacity impaired by illness - Mansfield v Weetabix
      - with D's skill but not inexperience
        
        Bolam - judged to standard of other pros
        
        Nettleship - learner status irrelevant
        
        Philips v William Whitely Ltd - special skill determines narrowness of negligence
        
        Montgomery v Lancashire Health Board - medical, must inform of risks
      - with current knowledge
        
        Haley v LEB - common knowledge
        
        Paris v Stepney BC - defendants knowledge
        
        Roe v MoH - specialist knowledge
    - - Seriousness of harm - Paris v Stepney
        
        Paris - should have goggles as already blind n one eye
      - cost/practicality of precaution - Latimer v AEC
        
        Latimer - only reasonable precautions expected
      - Likelihood of harm - Bolton v Stone
        
        Bolton v Stone - low risk of cricket ball going over fence
      - social utility - Scout Association v Barnes
      - common practice
- - - - Malone v Laskey - C must have a legal interest in the land
      - O'Callaghan - D had continued and adopted the nuisance
      - landlords liable for tenants
      - Interference
        
        use and enjoyment of land
        
        loss of amenity - Wheeler - smell- Kennaway - noise
        
        Malone v Lastey - Physical Damage to C's land
        
        interferences with rights over land
        
        not TV static - Hunter v Canary Wharf
        
        interference with light - Bury v Pope
      - Unlawfulness
        
        duration - Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton - short but physical damage
        
        degree of interference - Murdoch - no nuisance from droning as road nearby
        
        sensitivity of C - Walker - would it affect an ordinary person
        
        social utility - Dennis - was nuisance but damages awarded as provided national benefit
      - unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land Winfield
      - miller v Jackson - unreasonable use of a man of his land to the detriment of his neighbour
      - must show unreasonable use of the land
        
        sensitivity of the claimant - Robson v Kilvert
        
        duration and time of the nuisance - Halsey v Esso
        
        can be a one off event but continuous more likely - Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton
        
        character of the area - Hirose v Peak
        
        malice of the defendant - Christie v Davey
        
        Coventry v Lawrence
      - reasonable foreseeability of damage - Wagon Mound
    - - class must be affected - Ruffell
      - affects community at large - AC v PYA Quarries
      - local authorities
      - individual affected above the class, worse for them than the rest - Castle v St Augustines
      - Lowrie - prank calls to 999, affects whole community
    - - prescription
        
        nuisance existed 20 years without complaint - Sturges v Bridgman
      - statutory authority
        
        actions were legally authorised
      - coming to the nuisance not a defence - Miller v Jackson
    - - Cambridge Water v Eastern Countries Leather
      - Wagon Mound
  - - - artificial not natural (reservoir not a lake)
      - Giles v Walker - self seeded thistles natural
    - - likely to cause mischief if it escapes
      - likelihood of escape irrelevant
      - Humphries
    - - not commonplace
      - Rickards v Lothian - tap overflowing was ordinary
      - Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - chemical storage
      - Harooni - car with petrol not unusual, storing 200,000L of petrol is
      - Transco - burst pipe was natural
    - - Read v Lyons - no escape as C on D's land
      - must escape to premises D doesn't control
    - - Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - 1 1/2 miles away so doesn't count
      - personal injury doesn't count
    - - Act of God
        
        natural event too big to foresee or guard against Nichols v Marsland
      - Act of a stranger
        
        deliberate and unforeseen act of a person whom D has no control over Rickards v Lothian
      - Statutory Authority
        
        if authorised by Parliament as long as D isn't negligent
      - Common Benefit
        
        if accumulation benefits both C and D Dunse
      - Claimant's fault
        
        where solely C's fault Dunn
- - - - los of earnings between tort and trial
      - medical expenses
      - special facility expenses (living accommodations)
  - - - future loss of earnings - calculated as annual net loss x years
      - other forms of financial support deducted from total (entitled to an award for future care)
    - - pan and suffering - impossible to measure so Judicial College sets tariffs
      - loss of amenity
      - damages for ijury - injuries itemised and sums awarded based on precedents