Miscellaneous Quiz / Tort Lecture Cases

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the tort cases??

 Plays Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Score 0/100 Timer 20:00
Facts/RatioCaseAny extra bits.
Yorkshire ripper - police may have acted negligently - but no duty of care.Duty of Care Cases
Does Art 2 change things? - no - threats made kn own to place - not clear enough imminent threat-
Barrister immunity - didn't cut his ear off, bit it off! -
Barrister immunity removed-
'reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions you can reasonably foresee likely to injure neighbour'-
'not necessary to bring the facts within those of previous situation' 1. neighbour test - proximity 2. policy considerations-
1. damage foreseeable 2. sufficient relationship of proximity 3. fair, just and reasonable to impose DOC - 'the law should develop novel categories of negligence incrementally and -
DOC rules governing medical facilities at boxing matches insufficient - could have avoided brain injury-
Bank released what should have been frozen money - no negligence, won't invade contempt of tort-
Asked bookie to block account - didn't - gambled - there was a DOC (fails for causation)-
Geologists in Bangladesh - looking for specific pollutants - miss arsenic - proximity? large number of people - gone over for different job.-
1937 Factory act - every dangerous piece of machinery fenced - won't work - gives parliament chance to fixStandards of Liability
Liable even though normal procedure - not left arm please - no consent - batteryAbsolute/Strict/Reasonable/Low
Liable even though reasonably believed no risk... Circus-
Strictly liable for health safety of employees even when lent outIf foreseeable
'no obligation to take reasonable care to avoid the unforeseeable' - must not view a 1947 accident through 1953 spectacles4 factors deciding reasonable care
17 foot high fence - small risk - cost disproportionate - reasonable care - hit on head by cricket ballLikelihood, seriousness, ease, benefit
jockey in race - careless in breach of rules - no liability - context of fast moving contest - rule breaking relevant not determinative-
acceptable to use left hand drive american ambulance w/o indicators in war-
No justification for running a tiny risk when so easy to protect against-
Statute - made occupiers liability species of negligences(2)(3)children/experts etc
Workshop (in france?) assumed no need for eye protection - blind one eye - more vulnerable - extra precaution necessary-
D is entitled to take accoutn of victims capacity to avert risk - blind forseeable - but shoudl tak estick?! hole in rd - insufficient protection here... -
If an expert, entitled to assume they'll know the risks... carbon monoxide-
Lift accident, delegable duty - claim against contractor-
Car - cannot plead incompetence as defence - inexperience may be defence regarding injury to instructor not pedestriansObjective standard
hypoglaecemia - crash into shop - no reason why shouldn't escape liability with gradual disabling event - did not know and could not have - no fault - not liable-
irreversable brain damage - too hard and too long - Dr not departed from practice-
colts scrum - not volenti - consented to safe rules - x3/4 amount of normal collapse - foreseeable...not consented to negligence-
'skill of ordinary practioner of the profession' - reasonable school of thought - first instanceMedical Cases
Court could in theory evaluate expert evidence - say a whole profession was wrong - dr decides not to do minor surgery to help breathing - brain damage - reasonable dr-
Bolam standard applies to giving advice - Dr only negligence if doesn't tell you the risks a reasonable Dr would-
Western publications warned of side effect - you need to be aware of them - but even GPs wouldn't have picked them up here...In situe...
Solicitor failed to raise issue and obtain contract desired - chance of negotiating - loss of chance does feed into damages - probably only medical-
Weak knee - down stairs - original tortfeasor? real and effective cause? his action was unreasonable - take own weakness into account. Break causation.-
You must foresee another's negligence and expect them to make matters worse - chain of causation not broken to original damage - (apportionment of damages largely with T2 though)-
But - reckess driving - does break the chain-
Just history really - 'natural and direct consequences' - intentional and strict liabilityRemoteness of damage
Reasonable foreseeability test comes in - kind/extent distinction-
Child with lamp - explosion - what forseeable? burn - exploision just a big burne - type/extenthot on heels of WM
'physical injury' forseeable - very broad - bizarre sequence of events doesn't matter - boat crushOLA 1957 s.2
Injury - PTSD - suicide 6 years later - foreseeable-
'Eruption of liquid' not foreseeable - splash would have been...-
Egg-shell skull - 'take victim as you find them' - negligent burn on employee's lip - cancer - death - liable.-
foreseeable - policy - squatters - her fault for not securing3rd party makes it worse...
leg injury on faulty ladder - tetanus jab - 30sec needle in not 30min test - 5 days later - reaction, brain damage - reasonable dr would have made no differenceCausation and Remoteness
new years eve - vomiting - go home - arsenic dead - negligent - would have made no differenceCause in fact/law/remoteness
Dr advised C to have op - reluctantly agrees - no negligence in op. paralysed - very small but known risk - no warning - could have had op in future... Duty broken was right to choshe ASKED about more info in this case...
Loss of 25% chance of recovery- would have happened anyway...-
chance of long term survival of cancer down - 45% in prompt treatment lived 10 years - not good enough...-
partial disability overwhelmed by total loss - 2 years after accident BEFORE damages calculated - leg shot and amputated - only cause damage up to t2? no - would be shortful... 2ndOverwhelming causes
' ' overwhelmed by disease - back injury at work - back disease - liability stops when disease damage overtakes tort-
exposure to dust from 2 machines - one operated tortiously in statutory breach - material contribution testProof of causation
excessive oxygen - additional risk of blindness - no - 6 possible reasons - failed to prove Dr caused damage/ causing damage/putting someone at risk differentshow cause - you win
the exception - showers - medical evidence breaks down - lengthened exposure may not make difference to dermatitis - exceptionally allows additional riskmaterial contributon - win
mesothelioma - various employees - breach of duty in negligence - cannot show which exposure caused illness - just materially increased risk - proved all medicine could prove - allincrease risk - lose
liability under the above is not joint and several - (proportionate liability) Comp Act 2006 s.3 reverses this but ONLY for mesothelioma - this still applies elsewhere...with exceptions
CN used to a complete defence - changed thanks to statuteDefences
CN IS available in assault but NOT fraud...normal .... v not india ... corp
100% CN is not possible - these chaps actually blocked ex turpi causa and volenti - motorbike joy riding-
2 things when deciding what % CN - causal effect and blameworthiness of individual - CN finding at all = C failed to take care of own safetyBirds...
If C fails to take care, CN operates even though accident occuring was not that against which precauations normally directed - hitching lift on back of vehicle-
seatbelt - failure to take care is objective - individual's unreasonable view is discounted... - 'question is not what was cause of accident... what was the cause of the damage' - -
20% reduction here, knew driver of car had been drinking, brimms to the full...-
Children may be CN - depends what dangers child of particular age might appreciate - red indian game petrolSounds like Bond baddy
pre 1945 case - unwilling to find volenti - complete defence - passenger with drunk driver - not consented... NB - 1970 RTA - plead volenti in road traffic cases-
light aircraft - 17 whiskies - that's natural selection not an accident - you, fortunate idiot, were volenti-
volenti does not apply to industrial injuries - consent must be freely given, pressure on employee removes freedom of choicecommon man makes the bread
but in extreme circumstances it does - blows himself and bro up in breach of statute and rules-
defence not appropriate when the act was the very thing the defendant needed to protect - suicide in cell-
knows of vicious racist dog - facial injury - goes in yard - volenti - knew risk - very harsh-
Exclusion clause at entrance acts as condition of entry - just has to give reasonable notice of exclusion - all bound then even if they do not understand its significance - shortcu-
lawful visitor - fewer rights than trespasser - exclusion - thrown up in air - cannot be volenti does not know of the negligence in ropes - exclusion works (pre UCTA)-
sought to rely on disclaimer - site misrepresented in size - reasonable - P was sophisticated purchaser - had opportunity to read form...irishlike and road emmett...
Medical consent - full disclosure of risk not required, only basic outline of treatment - Sidaway etc measure negligent failure to disclosure limited risk, not the battery though..-
Photographer trampled at horse trials - no tort as no negligence - pushing horse to the limit - no defence needed... injured by reasonable conduct-
Illegality - capable of barring claim - he started the fight and came off fatally worse...-
P injured in RTA escaping scene of crime - thousands lost for a couple of radios... not every crime enough - cause/connection test - blocked if you have to plead illegal act as par-
P manslaughter after discharge from pyschiatric care - sues carers - kills someone - illegality - has to plea crime-
shotgun in shed - protecting his property - illegaility doesn't bit - pensioner used extreme force... 1984 act, won't treat them as outlaws, but 2/3 CN...-
burglar jumps out window - you didn't stop me! - blocked by illegality...-
brain damage in negligent car crash - depression + headaches - heroin - overdose - worse brain damage - broke the chain, voluntary - also unreasonable and illegalOwen...
naked man shot dead by police - what level of knowledge to plead self-defence? honestly held unreasonable belief sufficient? not at common law... (DOC though?!)-
child molesting - 'not premised on any culpable act or omission on part of employer...best understood as a loss-distribution device'Vicarious & Joint Liability
implied term of contract of employment - NB insurance implications - can go to employee for indemnity - circular, ridiculous and rareindustrialisation/deepest pocket/insurance/control employee
harbour - crane driver- original employer liable - look at circumstances of case - heavy burden of proof to shift to E2liverpudlian river shipmooring..
employee told how to behave by general employer AND E2 - both control - BOTH vicariously liable - split difference - impossible to seelatin travel and heat move
heavy burden of proof is met and E2 is liable!Swimming pool...
whether warden's torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold employer vicariously liable... close connection/fair and just-
Employee negligently smoking when discharging tanker - explosio - people smoked in 1942 - part of his dutis100yrs and munster rugby training board..
Went home to get knife - but still in course of employment, connected to his duties...-
Theft of silver bar from crate he was told to fumigate before - India - vicarious - connected to what he was employed to doteetering around the world included and mountain goat
Liability for independent contractors - exceptionally when... non-delegable duty - e.g. safety in worksplace-
pregnant publican - van - shock early birth - brain damage - feared for her safety - recoverablePsychiatric Injury
that last case overuled the initial rule - railway crossing near negligent miss - no to 'mere terror'-
Extended the publican - fear for OTHERS safety now... school - round the corner - crash - can recover for what you saw... CApig crossing river in red and white premiership twins
pregnant fishwife off tram - not within the DOC area - no threat - 'endure the calamities of modern life' and ' cannot be expected to compensate world at large'need to be a person of 'customary phlegm' Lord Porter - Brice v Brown (egg shell skull still applies after passing that test)
husband and 3 kids - 1 killed - rush to hospital 2hrs - covered in blood, tar, oil - does D owe mother DOC? 3 restrictions... i. emotional tie ii. proxy in time and space iii. own relationship,proximity to accident, means
more detail there after hillsborough - i. class - relationship of love and affection, ii. prox 'immediate aftermath', iii. means - own unaided senses.. (if more salacious tv, sue t-
Not mere anxiety of grief and sorrow - yes for nervous shock or recognized psychiatric illness caused by breach of DOC - floodgates/fraudBeans and icecream flavour... very..

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Join for Free
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments


Top Quizzes Today

Score Distribution

Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.

Report this User

Report this user for behavior that violates our Community Guidelines.