Untitled Quiz

Police are not generally liable for failing to act, like failing to catch a criminal. However, if police actions worsen or create a danger, they can be held liable.

Police have a duty of care when attempting an arrest. They must act carefully, avoiding creating additional harm.

Fire services generally don't have a duty to prevent harm, but if their actions worsen a situation, they can be liable.

Public bodies like police and fire departments can owe a duty of care if they act in a way that a private individual would. This is similar to duty of care owed in hospitals.

Public authorities owe the same duty of care as private entities unless they're protected by a statute. Statute is a law.

Public authorities can take on a duty of care by assuming responsibility for someone's safety. This assumption creates the duty of care.

If actions of a public body create a new danger or worsen an existing one then they are often liable.

Courts strive to protect public bodies from liability if possible. This protects them from over-regulation.

Sharing confidential information without permission, especially when it's not already public knowledge. This happens when someone knows or should know the other person expects privacy.

A legal test to determine if someone's privacy has been breached. The question is whether a reasonable person would expect their information to be kept private in the given situation.

Three rules that limit the Duty of Confidence: 1) Information must be confidential; 2) It cannot be trivial or useless; 3) The public's interest in disclosure can outweigh the duty.

Balancing the right to privacy (Article 8) with the right to free speech (Article 10), the court weighs individual privacy concerns against the public's need for information.

When revealing information is justified in the public's interest, even if it violates someone's right to privacy. The court weighs factors like the public's right to know against the harm caused to the individual.

A legal defence where a person's consent eliminates liability. They voluntarily agreed to the situation and the potential harm.

A defence where a person's own actions contributed to their harm, reducing or eliminating the responsibility of the other party.

Legal tools to address a breach of confidence: 1) Declarator (court declaration of rights); 2) Interdict (court order to stop the breach); 3) Damages (compensation for harm).

Police liability focuses on duty of care, not criminal behavior. Whether someone is criminally liable for a crime is separate from whether or not police were negligent.

Public authorities, like police, can be held liable if they take control of a dangerous situation and then fail to do so with reasonable care. Taking control creates a duty to act responsibly.

Employers have a legal duty to provide a safe work environment, including a safe system of work. This means taking steps to prevent accidents and injuries.

An employer can be held liable for psychiatric harm caused to an employee if the harm is foreseeable and the employer failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.

Generally, employers are not liable for pure economic loss, such as financial loss without physical injury. However, there are some exceptions.

A 'Kiss of Death' reference in a legal context implies a fatal flaw in a legal argument, often leading to failure in a claim. In the Spring case, the misrepresentation was made to another lawyer, not directly to the claimant, which weakened the claim.

There is a difference between a typical misrepresentation claim and a claim involving a 'Kiss of Death' reference. In Spring, the misrepresentation was made to a lawyer and not directly to the claimant, making it less likely to succeed as a claim.