Tort law

• Robinson


  The three-part test from Caparo
• Duty of care is owed, but only be applied in new or controversial cases
• Breach of duty of care


  Define and apply: D will have breached his duty of care if he failed to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the circumstances
• Where receiver, any special characteristic of D are considered
• Hazardous risk factors can raise or lower the standard of care required
• The more likely that a risk of harm would occur

  The higher the standard of care
• Causation


  C must prove that D's breach of duty was the factual cause of the damage, using the 'but for' test
• The legal chain of causation will only be broken by an act of nature, C's own conduct or an act of a third party
• Is the damage too remote? D will not be liable for damage that is too remote from his wrongdoing if he can prove that the kind of harm suffered was not reasonably foreseeable
• D must take C as he finds her
• Contributory negligence


  It is a general and partial defence
• Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945

  The amount of damages awarded against D can be reduced by the Judge according to the extent to which C has contributed to her own harm
• To succeed with the defence of contributory negligence

  D must prove that: 1) C was negligent in that she failed to take reasonable care in the circumstances for her own safety, and 2) C's fault was a contributory cause of the harm suffered
• Consent


  It is a general and complete defence
• To succeed with the consent defence

  C must have been aware of the specific risk of injury that occurred, and 2) C must have willingly agreed to run the risk
• Where C is intoxicated, the defence is not available
• The defence will not succeed where C has no choice but to accept the risk
• If an employee acts against an employer's orders, the defence of consent is likely to be available to the employer
• Consent will succeed on contact sports where the injuries caused by D are a result of conduct that falls within what can be reasonably expected in the sport
• However, a psychiatric injury question may identify the incident or harm may be The psychiatric condition of may have been caused by the negligence of D.
• Identify whether C is a Primary or Secondary victim

  A primary victim is within the zone of danger, a secondary victim is not within the zone of danger
• Primary Victim


  C must prove that he suffered from a recognised psychiatric condition that is severe and long-term, 2) C must show that physical or psychiatric injury was reasonably foreseeable due to the horrific event, 3) D must have breached his duty of care if he failed to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the circumstances, 4) Finally D's breach of duty must have caused the psychiatric injury suffered by C
• Secondary Victim


  C must prove that she suffered from a recognised psychiatric condition that is severe and long-term, 2) C must prove that it was reasonably foreseeable that a person of normal physical fortitude might suffer psychiatric injury from the horrific event, 3) The control mechanisms from Alcock must be satisfied: there must be a close relationship of love and affection between C and someone involved in the incident, there must be close proximity in time and space, and C must have witnessed the event or immediate aftermath with her own unaided senses, 4) D must have breached his duty of care if he failed to reach the standard of care required of the reasonable person in the circumstances, 5) D's breach of duty must totally be the cause of C's psychiatric injury
• D's breach of duty must totally be the cause of C's psychiatric injury