Tort Law Introduction - History

A legal theory that aims to restore fairness by requiring the person who caused harm to compensate the victim.

A legal theory that focuses on fair distribution of costs associated with accidents; often involves third parties like insurance or employers.

The idea that everyone should contribute to maintaining a safe and balanced society, and accidents disrupt this balance.

The legal responsibility for harm caused by a wrongful act, even if it was unintentional, based on the idea of 'reasonable foreseeability' of the harm.

A type of tort where liability is established regardless of fault; the act itself is considered harmful, even if unintentional.

Torts involving intentionally caused harm, including defamation, trespass, assault, and battery.

A legal principle that applies to the accumulation of hazardous substances that could escape and cause harm.

The legal principle that requires individuals to anticipate and avoid causing harm to others that is reasonably foreseeable.

The idea that harm itself creates the obligation to compensate, meaning there's no duty of care before an injury occurs.

A system where responsibility for injuries is determined through a predetermined set of rules without any formal fault-finding.

A government-operated program funded by taxes and employer contributions that covers various injury-related expenses, including treatment, loss of earnings, and compensation.

Compensation provided for lost income, up to 80% of earnings at the time of injury, with a set maximum amount.

Financial assistance provided to surviving spouses and dependents of individuals who have died due to an injury.

The principle that individuals must act with care and responsibility to avoid harming others, creating a legal obligation to compensate for negligence.

A legal principle that states that you must take reasonable care not to harm those who are likely to be affected by your actions. This principle is used to determine if someone owes a duty of care to another person.

A landmark case establishing the 'Neighbour Principle' and expanding liability outside of contracts. Involves a woman becoming ill after drinking ginger beer containing a decomposed snail.

Established a precedent that in the absence of a contract, courts were hesitant to recognize a general duty of care towards others.

A case that expanded on the 'Neighbour Principle', attempting to define who owed a duty of care regardless of a contract.

A legal area that addresses the assignment of responsibility for accidents.

Legal responsibility for a wrong committed, usually resulting in monetary compensation to the injured party.

The process of gradually expanding legal principles on a case-by-case basis, creating new rules and interpretations of the law.

The test used to determine if a duty of care exists, considering if the harm was reasonably foreseeable, the relationship of proximity between the parties, and if it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

A legal principle that a party should not be held liable for harm that was not reasonably foreseeable. This means the defendant should not be held responsible for consequences that were not reasonably predictable.

The legal principle requiring a sufficiently close relationship between the parties for a duty of care to exist. This means there must be a connection between the defendant and the claimant for a duty of care to be imposed.

The legal principle that a duty of are should only be imposed if it is fair, just, and reasonable to do so. This considers factors like public policy and fairness in imposing a duty of care.

A situation where a party has accepted responsibility for the safety or well-being of another. This can be a factor in establishing a duty of care.

Legal precedents from previous court cases that can guide the determination of whether a duty of care exists in a particular case.

A specific legal obligation imposed by a statute or law to act in a certain way. This can be a factor in establishing a duty of care.

A legal principle where a person is held liable for harm caused to another due to their failure to meet a standard of care. This standard is based on what a 'reasonable person' would do in similar circumstances.

A legal doctrine that establishes a duty of care between individuals. This duty requires individuals to act with reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others.

A legal standard that requires individuals to take reasonable measures to prevent avoidable harm. This involves anticipating possible risks and taking appropriate steps to minimize them.

A violation of the standard of reasonable care in a given situation, resulting in a risk of harm to others.

A direct causal link between the defendant's breach of duty and the plaintiff's injuries. The harm must be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence.

Legal arguments that seek to reduce or eliminate liability for negligence. These can include contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and statutory defenses.

A legal system where a person's liability is determined based on their negligence. This means that liability is not automatic and requires proof of negligence to establish responsibility.

Categories of situations where a duty of care arises that are not explicitly defined by existing laws or precedent, but are established by the courts based on new circumstances.

The landmark case that established a duty of care for negligent statements made by professionals, which are relied upon by others and lead to financial loss.

The case that extended the neighbour principle and established a two-part test for determining whether a duty of care exists.

A two-part test for determining whether a duty of care exists. It involves (1) proximity or neighbourhood between the parties and (2) absence of any considerations that would limit or reduce the scope of the duty.

The part of the Anns test that considers whether there's a close connection between the parties, making it likely carelessness from one party would harm the other.

The part of the Anns test that considers whether any factors would limit or reduce the scope of any potential duty of care.