9084 · 4.1.5
Novel duty situations flashcards
Revision flashcards for Cambridge 9084 Novel duty situations (syllabus 4.1.5). Flip, recall, then mark a real past-paper question.
Card
Primary vs secondary psychiatric victim?
Primary — directly involved in incident or immediate risk (Page v Smith). Secondary — witnesses aftermath; tighter Alcock controls apply.
Card
Alcock criteria (secondary victims)?
Close tie of love and affection; proximity in time and space to incident/ immediate aftermath; means of perception (own unaided senses); and injury caused by a sudden, shocking event.
Card
Hedley Byrne special relationship?
Negligent misstatement causing pure economic loss — duty if assumption of responsibility, special skill, reasonable reliance, and no disclaimer.
Card
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire?
Police owe no duty to individual members of public to prevent crime — policy against indeterminate liability and diversion of resources.
Card
Omissions — general rule?
No duty to act unless assumption of responsibility, special relationship, or control creating danger (Barrett v MOD, Stovin v Wise).
Card
Page v Smith (primary victim)?
Physical impact not required for psychiatric harm if psychiatric injury foreseeable type of harm in primary victim.
Card
What is the key difference between a primary and a secondary victim in a claim for psychiatric harm?
A primary victim is one who was in the zone of actual or apprehended physical danger. A secondary victim is a witness who was not in physical danger.
Card
What are the four 'control mechanisms' for secondary victims established in Alcock?
1. A close tie of love and affection with the immediate victim. 2. Proximity to the accident in time and space. 3. Perception of the event or its immediate aftermath with one's own unaided senses. 4. The psychiatric injury must be caused by a sudden, shocking event.
Card
Distinguish between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss.
Pure economic loss is financial loss that is not connected to any physical injury to the claimant or damage to their property. Consequential economic loss is a financial loss that results directly from such physical injury or property damage.
Card
What is the principle from Hedley Byrne v Heller regarding pure economic loss?
A duty of care can be owed for pure economic loss caused by a negligent misstatement if there is a 'special relationship' where the defendant assumes responsibility for their advice and the claimant reasonably relies on it.
Card
What are the three main exceptions to the general rule of no liability for omissions?
1. A pre-existing relationship creating a duty (e.g., contractual, parental). 2. A voluntary assumption of responsibility for the claimant's welfare. 3. The defendant created the dangerous situation.
Card
What principle was established in Spartan Steel & Alloys v Martin & Co?
A claimant can recover for physical damage and the consequential economic loss flowing directly from it, but not for pure economic loss (e.g., loss of future profits) caused by a negligent act.
Card
How did White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire affect claims by rescuers?
It confirmed that rescuers are not a special category. To claim for psychiatric harm, a rescuer must either be a primary victim (in the zone of physical danger) or satisfy the strict Alcock criteria for secondary victims.
Card
What is the 'immediate aftermath' doctrine?
Established in McLoughlin v O'Brian, it extends the proximity requirement for secondary victims to include witnessing the direct consequences of an event shortly after it occurs (e.g., seeing injured family in hospital), not just the event itself.
Card
Why was the duty of care denied in Caparo v Dickman?
The House of Lords held the auditors owed no duty to potential investors. The purpose of the audit was for the company's shareholders as a body, not for individual investors making investment decisions. There was no proximity between the auditors and Caparo.
Card
What is the difference between a 'policy' and an 'operational' decision for a public body?
'Policy' decisions involve allocating scarce resources or high-level strategy (e.g., how many fire engines to buy) and are generally non-justiciable. 'Operational' decisions are the practical execution of a policy (e.g., negligently driving a fire engine) and can give rise to a duty of care.