32:I[196793,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"Gingerbread"] 34:I[647935,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"RecordResourceResume"] 35:I[830476,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"FlashcardAccessBranch"] 36:I[315438,["/_next/static/chunks/075vy1fh16gh5.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/060-i_62-vse1.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2epfhfe5im7r6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2yhf9vq09dqoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0p4rexedanx97.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0u008gt6051u7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1odwrcl12kfnl.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zkcxwtbsqliz.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/316m85d5s15pp.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_itvjgqsumf8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wptr05dvvad-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3r5hh4t0jf4es.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ml3vooxhiupb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1h4wccj42vygd.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12xoy6h_w_le6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2os7nxouq91eq.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ht89vb0p09bm.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ocoqwe4aht_u.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32qmkt01ta8b2.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3jpl-42mbad5n.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bbv7o2-m-0ni.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/097slu7xaeast.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0shhrr8zrsvma.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0j1q2_fxvgx28.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/14kf-an-d2n-e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0v4byuex1x38h.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0mgw5qzpc_1eu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/09_ag440ieydu.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0gvj8_2lj8s8m.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/04zr-wqafvwoa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0llqhg6-bxn_b.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2ydqdr10ndcei.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ku-vdy4ggo41.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2dx-vzwyw9a3g.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/32i_8fssnjnil.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2eoustw-nfu98.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1oz24qjw4uq89.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0k-y_4mcfub-p.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0itrgb6vzmww0.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/00ol_16j3a2oa.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0odk_0my0_b5-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0dbk553rgd90s.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0aq3eylxphp57.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2srfni4gkx9g6.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3k8iy5tn80za8.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2hccrcvndngge.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3h4suq-9gmzwh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/12mv6p8rwcl5o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1bt82o91jhwht.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1nnw6yom6-qhh.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2vg15qyptj-oc.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2_vtmw66zj1j7.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0ep4vrgb00zlb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2s1hkstzlmj2o.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2wp4esku6l29e.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/43ajf4ofaeu5y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1lsxkfxy262n-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0zg1om_k0m5zv.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1__39-dgg7p8-.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2gb4dscyul4eg.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1y5xmyjgu8grb.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/2y341-r8ncizo.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0kpd0j3i_7yor.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/1ksyn9m68446d.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/0sf7rskx57j6y.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3wqp-h5xnebw9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/3ghbpnibq2fva.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947","/_next/static/chunks/30dopbgd1dkf9.js?dpl=nogit-1790172947"],"TopicFlashcardRunner"] 23:[["$","$L32",null,{"feature":"flashcards"}],"$L33",["$","$L34",null,{"href":"/a-level/law/aqa/theory-of-tort-law/flashcards","label":"Theory of tort law","subjectCode":"a_level_law__aqa","surface":"flashcards"}],["$","$L35",null,{"runner":["$","div",null,{"className":"min-h-0 flex-1 overflow-hidden bg-background","children":["$","$L36",null,{"decks":[{"id":"a1a2fc03-31e4-41ea-abbd-814dc0cc64e8","title":"Theory of tort law Flashcards","topicId":"5178f6c3-cb73-507e-b6d0-8c8a8b729b03","topicSlug":"theory-of-tort-law","cards":[{"id":"2ef7b8bb-341e-4c8e-8844-2211582ac4ae","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"In negligence, what structure must a claimant usually prove for tort liability?","back":"

Duty of care owed
Breach of that duty
Legally recognised damage caused

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Duty of care owed
Breach of that duty
Legally recognised damage caused

","correct":true,"explanation":"Negligence requires a duty owed to the claimant, breach of that duty, and legally recognised damage caused by the breach, subject to causation and remoteness rules."},{"text":"

Duty of care owed
Intention to cause harm
Legally recognised damage caused

","correct":false,"explanation":"Intention is generally relevant to intentional torts, not negligence. The claimant must instead establish a duty of care, breach of that duty, and legally recognised damage caused by the breach."},{"text":"

Contractual relationship existed
Breach of an agreement
Financial loss caused

","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses negligence with contractual liability, which depends on an agreement between the parties. Negligence ordinarily requires duty of care, breach, and legally recognised damage caused."},{"text":"

Duty of care owed
Unlawful conduct occurred
Foreseeable risk created

","correct":false,"explanation":"Unlawful conduct and the creation of risk do not complete the negligence structure. The claimant must prove breach of an owed duty and legally recognised damage caused by it."}]},{"id":"c80d763f-0634-40fd-8f5d-1a1d67c33ccb","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Tort law balances compensating claimants against avoiding [ ] for every harmful consequence of a defendant’s actions.","back":"Tort law balances compensating claimants against avoiding unlimited liability for every harmful consequence of a defendant’s actions.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"unlimited liability","correct":true,"explanation":"Tort law restricts the scope of responsibility so defendants are not liable without limit for every consequence causally connected to their actions."},{"text":"criminal liability","correct":false,"explanation":"Criminal liability concerns punishment by the state, rather than the boundaries of civil compensation. The relevant concern is avoiding unlimited liability for all harmful consequences."},{"text":"strict liability","correct":false,"explanation":"Strict liability removes or modifies the need to prove fault in certain torts, but the balancing concern described here is avoiding unlimited liability for consequences."},{"text":"vicarious liability","correct":false,"explanation":"Vicarious liability makes one party responsible for another’s tort in defined relationships. The broader policy concern in the sentence is avoiding unlimited liability."}]},{"id":"e1e60405-ed7e-48a8-8fd8-3d1bb77a4174","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"Which three questions make up the Caparo duty of care test?","back":"

Reasonable foreseeability of harm
Proximity between claimant and defendant
Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Reasonable foreseeability of harm
Proximity between claimant and defendant
Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty

","correct":true,"explanation":"The Caparo test asks whether harm was reasonably foreseeable, whether the parties were sufficiently proximate, and whether imposing a duty would be fair, just and reasonable."},{"text":"

Reasonable foreseeability of harm
Factual causation between breach and damage
Fair, just and reasonable to impose duty

","correct":false,"explanation":"Factual causation is considered after duty and breach, not as part of the Caparo duty test. Its second question is whether sufficient proximity existed."},{"text":"

Probability of harm
Proximity between claimant and defendant
Seriousness of the resulting damage

","correct":false,"explanation":"Probability and seriousness of harm are especially relevant when assessing breach. Caparo instead examines reasonable foreseeability, proximity, and whether a duty is fair, just and reasonable."},{"text":"

Reasonable foreseeability of harm
Remoteness of the resulting damage
Public interest in compensation

","correct":false,"explanation":"Remoteness determines which losses are recoverable after negligence is established, rather than whether a duty exists. Caparo requires proximity and a fair, just and reasonable assessment."}]},{"id":"f20c6c13-886b-43fe-bb1b-90db12ffab4e","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"After [ ], Caparo should not be used [ ] where an established duty category exists.","back":"After Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Caparo should not be used mechanically where an established duty category exists.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"After Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Caparo should not be used mechanically where an established duty category exists.","correct":true,"explanation":"Robinson confirmed that courts should develop negligence incrementally from precedent. The three-stage Caparo test is not a universal formula for established duty situations."},{"text":"After Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, Caparo should not be used mechanically where an established duty category exists.","correct":false,"explanation":"Hill addressed police liability and policy concerns but did not give this modern clarification of Caparo. That clarification came from Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police."},{"text":"After Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, Caparo should not be used incrementally where an established duty category exists.","correct":false,"explanation":"Incremental development by analogy with established authority is precisely the approach endorsed in Robinson. The judgment warned against applying Caparo mechanically in every duty case."},{"text":"After Donoghue v Stevenson, Caparo should not be used automatically where an established duty category exists.","correct":false,"explanation":"Donoghue v Stevenson established the neighbour principle decades before Caparo. The relevant authority is Robinson, which says Caparo should not be applied mechanically."}]},{"id":"f5b562a2-7f97-4d01-a5cf-827ae6cff318","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If allowing a duty would open up too many claims, what policy concern is engaged?","back":"Floodgates.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Floodgates.","correct":true,"explanation":"The floodgates concern is that recognising a duty could expose defendants and courts to an excessively large or indeterminate number of claims."},{"text":"Defensive practice.","correct":false,"explanation":"Defensive practice concerns professionals changing how they perform public or professional functions to avoid liability. Too many potential claims instead engage the floodgates concern."},{"text":"Loss allocation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Loss allocation asks who should bear the financial consequences of harm. The specific fear that recognising a duty will generate excessive claims is the floodgates concern."},{"text":"Judicial deference.","correct":false,"explanation":"Judicial deference concerns courts avoiding interference with decisions entrusted to other institutions. The policy concern about opening the way to excessive claims is floodgates."}]},{"id":"49346c8a-3050-45c4-958a-a46e8b56707f","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"Why did Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire refuse a police duty to an individual victim?","back":"Policy concern about defensive policing.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Policy concern about defensive policing.","correct":true,"explanation":"The court feared that imposing liability could cause police officers to make operational decisions primarily to avoid claims, diverting attention and resources from effective policing."},{"text":"Policy concern about judicial precedent.","correct":false,"explanation":"The refusal was not based on preserving precedent as an end in itself. A central policy concern was that liability might encourage defensive policing and distort police priorities."},{"text":"Policy concern about victim compensation.","correct":false,"explanation":"Compensating victims might favour recognising liability rather than refusing it. The court was concerned that a duty could produce defensive policing and divert limited police resources."},{"text":"Policy concern about contractual freedom.","correct":false,"explanation":"No contractual bargain requiring protection of the individual victim was involved. The relevant negligence policy concern was that imposing a duty might encourage defensive policing."}]},{"id":"8e878e5b-7885-4b82-8b7a-6aed760e2b79","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"[ ] is money/profit loss standing alone; [ ] flows from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property.","back":"Pure economic loss is money/profit loss standing alone; consequential economic loss flows from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Pure economic loss is money/profit loss standing alone; consequential economic loss flows from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property.","correct":true,"explanation":"Pure economic loss exists independently of physical injury or property damage, whereas consequential economic loss results from injury or damage to property belonging to the claimant."},{"text":"Consequential economic loss is money/profit loss standing alone; pure economic loss flows from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the two categories. Pure economic loss stands alone, while consequential economic loss results from personal injury or physical damage to the claimant’s own property."},{"text":"Pure economic loss is money/profit loss standing alone; indirect economic loss flows from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property.","correct":false,"explanation":"The recognised contrasting category is consequential economic loss, not indirect economic loss. It describes financial loss flowing from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property."},{"text":"Consequential economic loss is money/profit loss standing alone; indirect economic loss flows from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property.","correct":false,"explanation":"Both classifications are misplaced. Pure economic loss stands alone, while financial loss resulting from injury or damage to the claimant’s own property is consequential economic loss."}]},{"id":"ddd25532-e3da-4562-80c1-43dbae9b5988","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"In Spartan Steel, why were profits from further work during the power cut unrecoverable?","back":"They were pure economic loss.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"They were pure economic loss.","correct":true,"explanation":"The profits from possible further production were not consequent on damage to Spartan Steel’s property, so they amounted to unrecoverable pure economic loss."},{"text":"They were consequential economic loss.","correct":false,"explanation":"Consequential profit loss linked to the damaged metal was recoverable. Profits from separate batches that could not be produced were pure economic loss because no property damage caused them."},{"text":"They were too remotely foreseeable.","correct":false,"explanation":"The decisive classification was not that the loss was unforeseeable or too remote. The further profits were unrecoverable because they constituted pure economic loss."},{"text":"They were caused by contributory negligence.","correct":false,"explanation":"Contributory negligence reduces damages where the claimant helped cause the loss, but that was not the basis here. The further profits were unrecoverable pure economic loss."}]},{"id":"84dda89d-867b-4946-aff7-0e54763836a6","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"When can negligent advice create a duty under Hedley Byrne v Heller?","back":"

Assumption of responsibility by defendant
Reasonable reliance by claimant

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Assumption of responsibility by defendant
Reasonable reliance by claimant

","correct":true,"explanation":"A duty for negligent advice may arise where the defendant assumes responsibility for the statement and the claimant reasonably relies on it, creating the necessary special relationship."},{"text":"

Knowledge of vulnerability by defendant
Financial loss by claimant

","correct":false,"explanation":"Foreseeable vulnerability and financial loss alone do not establish a duty for negligent advice. Hedley Byrne requires an assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance by the claimant."},{"text":"

Intention to contract by defendant
Payment for advice by claimant

","correct":false,"explanation":"A contract and payment are not required for liability in negligent misstatement. The relevant requirements are the defendant’s assumption of responsibility and the claimant’s reasonable reliance."},{"text":"

Foreseeability of loss by defendant
Actual reliance by claimant

","correct":false,"explanation":"Mere foreseeability and actual reliance are insufficient because the reliance must be reasonable and the defendant must have assumed responsibility for the advice under Hedley Byrne."}]},{"id":"734e734e-63aa-4570-9247-785ce07d9d72","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Psychiatric injury must be a [ ]; ordinary grief, fear or distress is [ ].","back":"Psychiatric injury must be a medically recognised psychiatric illness; ordinary grief, fear or distress is not enough.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Psychiatric injury must be a medically recognised psychiatric illness; ordinary grief, fear or distress is not enough.","correct":true,"explanation":"Tort law compensates a medically recognised psychiatric illness rather than normal emotional reactions. Ordinary grief, fear or distress does not by itself constitute actionable psychiatric injury."},{"text":"Psychiatric injury must be a reasonably foreseeable emotional response; ordinary grief, fear or distress is always enough.","correct":false,"explanation":"Foreseeability does not turn an ordinary emotional response into psychiatric injury. The claimant must prove a medically recognised psychiatric illness, and grief, fear or distress alone is not enough."},{"text":"Psychiatric injury must be a medically recognised psychiatric illness; ordinary grief, fear or distress is usually sufficient.","correct":false,"explanation":"Although the first requirement is accurate, ordinary grief, fear or distress remains insufficient. Liability requires evidence that the claimant has suffered a medically recognised psychiatric illness."},{"text":"Psychiatric injury must be a serious physical health condition; ordinary grief, fear or distress is not enough.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses psychiatric injury with physical injury. The required condition is a medically recognised psychiatric illness, while ordinary grief, fear or distress remains insufficient."}]},{"id":"033f4b5c-e0b8-48ba-b097-c4c0262a1c30","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"For a primary victim under Page v Smith, what foreseeability is enough?","back":"Physical injury must be foreseeable.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Physical injury must be foreseeable.","correct":true,"explanation":"Under Page v Smith, a primary victim need only show that physical injury was foreseeable. Psychiatric injury itself does not have to be separately foreseeable."},{"text":"Psychiatric injury must be foreseeable.","correct":false,"explanation":"Requiring foreseeability of psychiatric injury applies the wrong threshold to a primary victim. Under Page v Smith, foreseeability of physical injury is sufficient."},{"text":"Serious injury must be foreseeable.","correct":false,"explanation":"The law does not require the likely injury to be serious. For a primary victim under Page v Smith, it is enough that physical injury was foreseeable."},{"text":"Fatal injury must be foreseeable.","correct":false,"explanation":"Foreseeability of death is an excessively demanding threshold. A primary victim can recover for psychiatric injury where some physical injury, not necessarily fatal injury, was foreseeable."}]},{"id":"bfa1c2d0-f950-41b8-b563-d60c3131a8c8","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"For a secondary victim, what relationship control does Alcock require?","back":"A close tie of love and affection.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A close tie of love and affection.","correct":true,"explanation":"Alcock requires a secondary victim to demonstrate a close tie of love and affection with the person endangered, although certain relationships benefit from a rebuttable presumption."},{"text":"A formal tie of legal dependency.","correct":false,"explanation":"Legal or financial dependency is not the relevant relationship control. Alcock requires a close tie of love and affection between the secondary victim and the person endangered."},{"text":"A close tie of physical proximity.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses the relationship requirement with the separate proximity control. The required relationship is a close tie of love and affection, not merely physical closeness."},{"text":"A direct tie of blood relationship.","correct":false,"explanation":"A blood relationship alone is neither universally required nor automatically sufficient. Alcock focuses on whether there was a close tie of love and affection."}]},{"id":"ff2cee2f-2f4a-44cb-953a-1c2842fb70e9","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"For a secondary victim, what proximity control is required?","back":"Proximity in time and space to the event or immediate aftermath.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Proximity in time and space to the event or immediate aftermath.","correct":true,"explanation":"A secondary victim must be sufficiently close in both time and space to the accident or its immediate aftermath, rather than learning about it remotely or much later."},{"text":"Proximity in cause and effect to the event or immediate aftermath.","correct":false,"explanation":"Causal connection alone does not satisfy this control mechanism. A secondary victim must have proximity in time and space to the event or its immediate aftermath."},{"text":"Proximity in love and affection to the event or immediate aftermath.","correct":false,"explanation":"This merges two distinct Alcock controls. Love and affection concerns the claimant’s relationship, while proximity requires closeness in time and space to the event or immediate aftermath."},{"text":"Proximity in legal and moral duty to the event or immediate aftermath.","correct":false,"explanation":"A legal or moral duty is not the relevant proximity test. The claimant must be close in time and space to the event or its immediate aftermath."}]},{"id":"ea36a5d5-c3ef-4920-badf-bd1c9ecde93f","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"A secondary victim must [ ] the event, and psychiatric injury must be caused by a [ ].","back":"A secondary victim must directly perceive the event, and psychiatric injury must be caused by a sudden shock.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A secondary victim must directly perceive the event, and psychiatric injury must be caused by a sudden shock.","correct":true,"explanation":"A secondary victim must perceive the event or immediate aftermath through their own unaided senses, and the recognised psychiatric illness must result from a sudden shocking event."},{"text":"A secondary victim must hear reports of the event, and psychiatric injury must be caused by a sudden shock.","correct":false,"explanation":"Reports from others or through the media generally do not amount to direct perception. The claimant must directly perceive the event, with psychiatric injury caused by sudden shock."},{"text":"A secondary victim must directly perceive the event, and psychiatric injury must be caused by a gradual process.","correct":false,"explanation":"Direct perception satisfies one control, but gradual deterioration does not satisfy the shock requirement. The psychiatric injury must be induced by a sudden shock rather than cumulative distress."},{"text":"A secondary victim must reasonably foresee the event, and psychiatric injury must be caused by a gradual process.","correct":false,"explanation":"Foreseeing the event is not the same as personally perceiving it, and gradual distress is insufficient. A secondary victim must directly perceive an event producing sudden shock."}]},{"id":"40a5ebd9-7716-4110-af87-1399f760b5dd","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"The objective standard asks what the [ ] in the defendant’s position would do, not the defendant’s [ ] of care.","back":"The objective standard asks what the reasonable person in the defendant’s position would do, not the defendant’s personal view of care.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"The objective standard asks what the reasonable person in the defendant’s position would do, not the defendant’s personal view of care.","correct":true,"explanation":"Breach is assessed objectively by comparing the defendant with a reasonable person in the same relevant circumstances, rather than accepting the defendant’s own opinion about adequate care."},{"text":"The objective standard asks what the average person in the defendant’s position would do, not the defendant’s personal view of care.","correct":false,"explanation":"The legal standard is not based on statistically average behaviour, which may itself be careless. It asks what the reasonable person in the defendant’s position would do."},{"text":"The objective standard asks what the reasonable person in the defendant’s position would do, not the defendant’s professional training of care.","correct":false,"explanation":"The defendant’s own personal view is disregarded, but relevant professional status may affect the objective standard applied. The contrast is between the reasonable person and the defendant’s personal view."},{"text":"The objective standard asks what the defendant personally in the defendant’s position would do, not the defendant’s reasonable view of care.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the objective test by focusing on the individual defendant. The court instead asks what the reasonable person would do, regardless of the defendant’s personal view."}]},{"id":"5975b876-fdf0-4f9f-ad35-abe1c8491823","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If harm is very unlikely, how does that affect breach?","back":"Fewer precautions may be required, as in Bolton v Stone.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Fewer precautions may be required, as in Bolton v Stone.","correct":true,"explanation":"A very low probability of harm reduces the precautions a reasonable person may be expected to take. In Bolton v Stone, the exceptionally small risk supported no breach."},{"text":"Greater precautions may be required, as in Bolton v Stone.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the effect of probability on breach. Bolton v Stone shows that a very unlikely risk may justify fewer precautions, depending on the circumstances."},{"text":"Automatic liability may be required, as in Bolton v Stone.","correct":false,"explanation":"Negligence does not impose automatic liability merely because harm occurs. Bolton v Stone indicates that a very unlikely risk may require fewer precautions."},{"text":"Strict precautions may be required, as in Bolton v Stone.","correct":false,"explanation":"This treats every small risk as demanding an especially strict response. Bolton v Stone instead shows that fewer precautions may be reasonable where harm is very unlikely."}]},{"id":"bb2c54ad-9b00-48de-a029-d6d0a346073e","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"If potential harm is especially serious, how does that affect breach?","back":"Greater care is required, as in Paris v Stepney.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Greater care is required, as in Paris v Stepney.","correct":true,"explanation":"The reasonable person takes greater precautions where the possible harm is particularly severe. In Paris v Stepney, the claimant’s vulnerability increased the seriousness of the foreseeable harm."},{"text":"Less care is required, as in Paris v Stepney.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses the risk principle. Particularly serious potential harm requires greater care, as Paris v Stepney demonstrates, because reasonable precautions depend partly on the possible consequences."},{"text":"Ordinary care is required, as in Bolton v Stone.","correct":false,"explanation":"This overlooks the magnitude of the potential harm and cites a case primarily concerning low probability. Greater care is required where foreseeable harm could be especially serious, as in Paris v Stepney."},{"text":"No extra care is required, as in Nettleship v Weston.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses the objective standard applied to inexperienced defendants with the assessment of risk severity. Especially serious potential harm requires greater care, illustrated by Paris v Stepney."}]},{"id":"74bd27ad-86ea-4e58-8453-6d190fbc3a35","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What does Latimer v AEC show about precautions?","back":"Only reasonable precautions are required; total closure was unnecessary.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Only reasonable precautions are required; total closure was unnecessary.","correct":true,"explanation":"The defendant had taken practical steps by spreading sawdust after flooding. Reasonableness did not require eliminating every risk, and closing the entire factory would have been disproportionate."},{"text":"All possible precautions are required; total closure was necessary.","correct":false,"explanation":"This wrongly treats the duty as requiring complete safety. Latimer v AEC establishes that only reasonable precautions are required, so the factory did not need to close entirely."},{"text":"Only inexpensive precautions are required; total closure was irrelevant.","correct":false,"explanation":"Cost is relevant but does not independently determine the standard of care. Latimer v AEC shows that reasonable precautions are required and that total closure was disproportionate."},{"text":"Only customary precautions are required; total closure was compulsory.","correct":false,"explanation":"Following customary practice does not automatically satisfy the reasonable person standard, and closure was not compulsory. The case shows that reasonable precautions were sufficient and total closure was unnecessary."}]},{"id":"9ce74d91-b02d-4a6b-bf8d-3982ab1f3b0a","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"A learner driver is judged by the standard of a [ ]; a child by a reasonable child of the [ ].","back":"A learner driver is judged by the standard of a competent driver; a child by a reasonable child of the same age.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"A learner driver is judged by the standard of a competent driver; a child by a reasonable child of the same age.","correct":true,"explanation":"Learner drivers receive no reduced standard because inexperience does not excuse unsafe driving. Children are assessed more flexibly against the conduct expected of a reasonable child of their own age."},{"text":"A learner driver is judged by the standard of a competent learner; a child by a reasonable child of the same age.","correct":false,"explanation":"The first term wrongly allows inexperience to lower the driving standard. A learner is judged as a competent driver, while a child is compared with a reasonable child of the same age."},{"text":"A learner driver is judged by the standard of a competent driver; a child by a reasonable child of the adult age.","correct":false,"explanation":"The driving standard is correct, but children are not ordinarily judged as adults. The appropriate comparison is a reasonable child of the same age, reflecting age-related judgment and experience."},{"text":"A learner driver is judged by the standard of a careful beginner; a child by a reasonable child of the same intelligence.","correct":false,"explanation":"Both comparisons are misstated. A learner must meet the standard of a competent driver, while a child is judged against a reasonable child of the same age, not identical intelligence."}]},{"id":"d955eb25-f5e3-45bb-b324-77975c3f6bc9","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What limit does Bolitho add to the Bolam professional standard?","back":"Professional opinion must be logically defensible.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Professional opinion must be logically defensible.","correct":true,"explanation":"Bolitho permits the court to reject a responsible body of professional opinion if its reasoning cannot withstand logical analysis. Expert support therefore does not automatically prevent a finding of breach."},{"text":"Professional opinion must be universally accepted.","correct":false,"explanation":"Bolam does not require unanimity among professionals, and competing responsible views may exist. Bolitho instead requires the relied-upon professional opinion to be logically defensible."},{"text":"Professional opinion must be supported by patients.","correct":false,"explanation":"Patient approval is not the test for the soundness of professional practice. Bolitho requires professional opinion to be logically defensible when examined by the court."},{"text":"Professional opinion must be followed without question.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reflects an overly deferential reading of Bolam. Under Bolitho, courts may scrutinise expert reasoning and reject professional opinion that is not logically defensible."}]},{"id":"05cad1ba-617d-4a0b-abbf-aaf0f95471bb","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"An injunction is an [ ], so it is [ ].","back":"An injunction is an equitable remedy, so it is discretionary.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"An injunction is an equitable remedy, so it is discretionary.","correct":true,"explanation":"Injunctions originate in equity and are not granted automatically after liability is proved. The court retains discretion and considers factors such as fairness, practicality and the parties’ conduct."},{"text":"An injunction is an automatic remedy, so it is guaranteed.","correct":false,"explanation":"This wrongly assumes that proving a tort creates an automatic entitlement. An injunction is an equitable remedy, so its award is discretionary and depends on the circumstances."},{"text":"An injunction is an ordinary remedy, so it is available as of right.","correct":false,"explanation":"An injunction is not a remedy available as of right merely because liability is established. It is an equitable remedy, meaning the court decides whether granting it is appropriate."},{"text":"An injunction is an equitable remedy, so it is automatic.","correct":false,"explanation":"The first classification is correct, but the consequence is reversed. Because an injunction is equitable, it is discretionary rather than automatic, allowing the court to refuse or tailor relief."}]},{"id":"1d00efe1-b074-4747-b093-c7ded122872b","cardType":"basic","points":3,"front":"Under Shelfer, when may damages replace an injunction?","back":"

Small injury
Money valuation and adequate compensation
Oppressive effect of injunction

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Small injury
Money valuation and adequate compensation
Oppressive effect of injunction

","correct":true,"explanation":"The traditional Shelfer approach permits damages instead where the injury is small, measurable and adequately compensable in money, and granting an injunction would be oppressive to the defendant."},{"text":"

Serious injury
No money valuation or adequate compensation
Minor effect of injunction

","correct":false,"explanation":"These factors point towards injunctive relief rather than substitution by damages. Shelfer requires a small, financially measurable injury that money can adequately compensate, plus an oppressive effect from an injunction."},{"text":"

Small injury
Money valuation but inadequate compensation
Necessary effect of injunction

","correct":false,"explanation":"A monetary valuation alone is insufficient if damages would not adequately compensate the claimant. Under Shelfer, compensation must be adequate and the injunction must operate oppressively."},{"text":"

Repeated injury
Criminal penalty and public punishment
Affordable effect of injunction

","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses private-law remedies with criminal punishment and uses affordability rather than oppression. Shelfer focuses on small, monetarily compensable injury and an oppressive injunction."}]},{"id":"1dc15830-a847-4628-b184-970474c57a04","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"How can an injunction be tailored under Kennaway v Thompson?","back":"By limiting the nuisance rather than banning it entirely.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"By limiting the nuisance rather than banning it entirely.","correct":true,"explanation":"In Kennaway v Thompson, the court controlled the frequency and timing of powerboat racing instead of prohibiting it completely, balancing the claimant’s rights with the activity’s continuation."},{"text":"By authorising the nuisance rather than restricting it at all.","correct":false,"explanation":"The court did not permit the nuisance to continue without restriction. Kennaway v Thompson shows that an injunction can limit the activity rather than ban it completely."},{"text":"By compensating the nuisance rather than controlling it directly.","correct":false,"explanation":"This substitutes damages for an injunction rather than tailoring injunctive relief. In Kennaway v Thompson, the order limited when and how often the nuisance could occur."},{"text":"By prohibiting the nuisance rather than regulating it partly.","correct":false,"explanation":"This assumes that an injunction must impose a total ban. Kennaway v Thompson demonstrates flexibility: the court may limit a nuisance’s extent, timing or frequency instead."}]},{"id":"458cb9af-fec5-48bc-819c-5c1913076f44","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"What two questions structure modern vicarious liability?","back":"

Is the relationship close enough?
Is the tort closely connected to it?

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Is the relationship close enough?
Is the tort closely connected to it?

","correct":true,"explanation":"Modern vicarious liability asks whether the defendant’s relationship with the tortfeasor is sufficiently akin to employment and whether the wrongdoing is closely connected with that relationship."},{"text":"

Is the claimant close enough?
Is the damage reasonably foreseeable to them?

","correct":false,"explanation":"These resemble duty of care and remoteness questions, not the vicarious liability test. The correct questions concern whether the relationship is close enough and the tort closely connected to it."},{"text":"

Is the relationship contractual enough?
Is the tort expressly authorised by it?

","correct":false,"explanation":"Vicarious liability does not require a formal employment contract or express authorisation of the tort. It asks whether the relationship is close enough and the wrongdoing closely connected to it."},{"text":"

Is the employer personally at fault?
Is the tort committed negligently by them?

","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses vicarious liability with direct personal liability and wrongly limits it to negligence. The modern test examines the relationship’s closeness and the tort’s connection with that relationship."}]},{"id":"dd2cc46f-818b-43c4-93b6-c5a76274be39","cardType":"cloze","points":null,"front":"Relationships [ ] may trigger vicarious liability, but genuine [ ] are usually outside it.","back":"Relationships akin to employment may trigger vicarious liability, but genuine independent contractors are usually outside it.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"Relationships akin to employment may trigger vicarious liability, but genuine independent contractors are usually outside it.","correct":true,"explanation":"Vicarious liability can extend beyond formal employment where the relationship has employment-like features. A genuinely independent contractor operates on their own account, so liability will not usually transfer."},{"text":"Relationships based on contracts for services may trigger vicarious liability, but genuine independent contractors are usually outside it.","correct":false,"explanation":"A contract for services ordinarily indicates independent contractor status rather than an employment-like relationship. The relevant category is a relationship akin to employment, while genuine independent contractors are usually excluded."},{"text":"Relationships akin to employment may trigger vicarious liability, but genuine employees are usually outside it.","correct":false,"explanation":"Employees are the central category covered by vicarious liability, not a category normally excluded from it. The usual exclusion applies to genuine independent contractors operating on their own account."},{"text":"Relationships based on social connections may trigger vicarious liability, but genuine agents are usually outside it.","correct":false,"explanation":"A merely social connection lacks the enterprise and employment features needed for vicarious liability. Employment-like relationships may qualify, whereas the usual excluded category is genuine independent contractors."}]},{"id":"73c1d159-8f87-4502-a8f9-50522190b41d","cardType":"basic","points":2,"front":"How do Mohamud and WM Morrison contrast on close connection?","back":"

Mohamud: customer-facing assault was connected.
WM Morrison: personal revenge data leak was not.

","mcqOptions":[{"text":"

Mohamud: customer-facing assault was connected.
WM Morrison: personal revenge data leak was not.

","correct":true,"explanation":"In Mohamud, the assault was treated as an unbroken sequence arising from the employee’s customer-facing role. In WM Morrison, the employee pursued a personal vendetta outside his assigned functions."},{"text":"

Mohamud: customer-facing assault was not connected.
WM Morrison: personal revenge data leak was connected.

","correct":false,"explanation":"This reverses both decisions. Mohamud found a close connection because the assault followed the employee’s interaction with a customer, while WM Morrison rejected liability because the leak pursued personal revenge."},{"text":"

Mohamud: customer-facing assault was connected.
WM Morrison: workplace data access made the leak connected.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Mere workplace access or opportunity does not establish close connection. Mohamud involved an unbroken customer-facing episode, but WM Morrison concerned a personal vendetta rather than conduct within assigned functions."},{"text":"

Mohamud: personal violence broke the connection.
WM Morrison: personal revenge data leak was not.

","correct":false,"explanation":"Personal motivation did not by itself break the connection in Mohamud, where the assault continued the customer interaction. WM Morrison differed because the data leak was an independent act of revenge."}]},{"id":"e12bcc56-ee35-4234-94da-edd977c40a86","cardType":"basic","points":1,"front":"What policy justifies vicarious liability through enterprise risk?","back":"An organisation creating risks should bear losses caused by them.","mcqOptions":[{"text":"An organisation creating risks should bear losses caused by them.","correct":true,"explanation":"Enterprise risk theory places liability on the organisation because its activities create or increase the relevant risks. It is therefore fair for the enterprise to absorb losses arising from those risks."},{"text":"An employee creating risks should bear losses caused by them.","correct":false,"explanation":"This reflects personal fault rather than enterprise risk. The policy behind vicarious liability is that the organisation creates and benefits from the enterprise, so it should bear resulting losses."},{"text":"An organisation creating risks should share losses equally with employees.","correct":false,"explanation":"Enterprise risk does not require an equal division between employer and employee. It justifies imposing liability on the organisation because the organisation created, controlled and benefited from the risk-producing activity."},{"text":"An insurer covering risks should bear losses caused by them.","correct":false,"explanation":"This confuses enterprise risk with insurance. The justification focuses on the organisation whose activities generated the risk, whether or not that organisation has arranged insurance against resulting liability."}]}]}],"examCountdown":{"examDate":"2027-05-20","paperLabel":"Paper 1"},"heading":"Theory of tort law","title":"Theory of tort law Flashcards","topbar":{"backHref":"/a-level/law/aqa/flashcards"},"topicSidebar":"$L37"}]}],"topicId":"5178f6c3-cb73-507e-b6d0-8c8a8b729b03","walled":"$L38"}],"$L39","$L3a"]