Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Tort Law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Always start with the case of Robinson v Chief constable of west yorkshire: three elements of acti. We owe others a DOC not to:
        
        which reasonably foreseeably
        
        Haley v London electricity board respondents 1965
        
        do acts
        
        Act or omission? Topp v london country bus 1993
        
        cause others a risk of physical injury or property damage
        
        Complex interest: economic loss and psychiatric injury. Seen as less important by the courts in this tort.
        
        General exclusionary rule for psychiatric injury unless it is consequent upon physical injury or property damage.
        
        Attia v British Gas 1988
        
        Simple interest: property and physical damage. Prioritised by the court in the tort of negligence.
        
        Robinson - incremental application, finding established categories of negligence
        
        1) does the case fall within an "established category of duty?" eg, this may be doctor-patient relationship,a driver's duty on the roads. If YES, no need to move onto other steps...
        
        ABC v St george's healthcare trust 2020 - a novel duty, no prior established category.
        
        2) comparison with analogous cases. if you can find a case with similar facts you can use that to determine if there is a duty.
        
        3) are there policy considerations for us to impose a DOC?
        
        Hillsborough cases - sometimes judges have had to use their own discretion to prevent opening the "floodgates" for negligence claims.