Delict Tutorial 2
DUTY OF CARE 2: OMISSIONS, PSYCHIATRIC INJURY
Paul owns a small factory that makes paper products. A fire breaks out at the
factory one night. The Scottish Fire and Rescue service attend the scene of the
blaze promptly, and appears t
Jones v Livox Quarries
- If he ought reasonably to have foreseen that if he did not axct as a reasonable,
prudent man then he would hurt himself.
- This lack of care on the pursuers part must ha
Delict W2L1 22.9.2014
- 5 stage enquiry
o General tests v incremental approach.
- Donoghue v Stevenson, Caparo v Dickman.
o Lots of questions.
The entire procedure up to the house of Lords
Marcic v thames Water Utilities
- House owner brings action against a water processor who was doing their duty
based on a statute. Every time they operated they sent backwash >luid into his
o Where Parlia
Delict W11L1 24.11.2014
Involving Heritable property
Type of harm
- No physical damage but interference with enjoyment.
- A nuisance may be merely the right thing in the wrong place - like a pig in
Chapter 12.5- Onwards
An employer is vicariously liable for the delicts committed by an employee in
the course of his employment.
In theory they are jointly and severally liable, but in practice you
choose to sue the employer who is more likely to have
Kay v ITW 1968
- Employee tries to return truck. Other truck in the way. Tried to move other
truck. Neglgiently move other truck; hurts someone.
- Employer liable: he was trying to do what he was supposed to do he just went
about it in a negligent way.
Delict W9L2 13.11.2014
McDyer v Celtic FC
- Courts could use the doctrine of the thing speaks for itself to jump some
- Pursuer injured at the park, a piece of timber fell on his head.
Delict W8L2 6.11.2014
Statutes and Delict
Consumer Protection Act 1987
- Dont need to know in much detail
o Theyll be provided in the Exam if they appear at all
o Dont need to buy statutes.
Delict W1L2 18.9.2014
Summary of negligence
- 1. Prove the duty of Care
- 2. Defendant has breached the duty of care.
- 3. Must have caused to the pursuer loss or harm.
- 4. Loss must not be
Delict W8L1 3.11.2014
- You dont have to sue the employer; you can sue the person who actually
committed the wrong.
- Partnership and Partners: Partnership Act 1890 s 10.
Oil Technics v Thistle Chemicals 97
- Interdict to stop competitor from using their formula for cleaning solvent.
- The pursuer had acquired the information from past employees. The new
employer was bound because of t
Delict Tutorial 4: week beginning 17th November
Lizzie buys from the Early Play Centre one of their popular Early Play Centre
steel climbing frames to gift to her young granddaughters. Although it comes in
Early Play Centre packagi