Case Details: Weeks 1-4

Question 1

Letang v Cooper [1965]

Answer 1

The claimant was sunbathing in the car park. The defendant drove over the claimant’s legs with his car. For technical reasons relating the claim was for trespass to the person, rather than negligence.
Held: that there was no trespass to the person as the defendant’s act was not intentional. Either intention OR carelessness

Question 2

Fowler v Lanning [1959]

Answer 2

The intention requirement relates only to the original touching. The claimant does not need to prove that the defendant intended harm to result from his actions.

Question 3

Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969]

Answer 3

Fagan unintentionally drove his car onto PC Morris’s foot. When asked to move, he initially refused, and turned off his engine. After being requested to move several times, he reluctantly acquiesced. It was held, inter alia, that (1) battery could be inflicted through the medium of a weapon (in this case, a car) and that (2) although the original act was unintentional, it became a criminal act and would also be tortious from the moment of the necessary intention to inflict unlawful force.

Question 4

Scott v Shepherd (1773)

Answer 4

The defendant threw a lit squib into a market. The squib was thrown on several times, before exploding and injuring the claimant (causing him to lose the use of one eye).
Held: The court said that the physical contact was still direct, and the people in the middle (who threw the squib on) didn’t interfere with the directness

Question 5

R v Cotesworth [1704]

Answer 5

Spitting held to be an application of force.

Question 6

Collins v Wilcock [1984]

Answer 6

A police officer grabbed the arm of a woman suspected of being a prostitute
Held: Since he was not exercising his power of arrest he could not hold her as that went beyond what is acceptable physical contact to engage someone’s attention

Question 7

Wilson v Pringle [1987]

Answer 7

School boys, practical jokes. Added consideration of hostility.
Held: to establish a claim in battery, the claimant must prove that there has been a direct and intentional application of force, arguably with some degree of hostility, to which the claimant has not consented.

Question 8

R v Ireland [1997]

Answer 8

Repeated silent phone calls.

Held: It was held in this case that receiving a phone call and then nobody talking can be scary and can lead you to believe an imminent battery is coming your way. Lord Hope was claiming in the case that a climate of fear was being created by a silent phone call. Was an assault.

Question 9

R v St George [1840]

Answer 9

Empty gun pointed at claimant, still apprehension of immediate battery.
Held: Was an assault.

Question 10

Stephens v Myers (1830)

Answer 10

Facts: At a parish meeting they voted for a person to leave. He said to them that he would rather chuck the chairman out of his char than leave and advanced upon him. However, he was stopped from chucking him out of his chair by the church warden.
Held: This was held to constitute an assault - it does not matter that he did not actually chuck the chairman out of his chair

Question 11

Thomas v NUM [1986]

Answer 11

Facts: The claimants were being transported by bus through the picket line at their colliery. The bus was protected from the pickets by a police cordon. The load noises and banging lead to claimant claiming assault.
Held: Not assault, not able to immediately be hurt.

Question 12

Tuberville v Savage [1669]

Answer 12

Facts: A man put his hand on his sword (which is an aggressive act) and said to another man, ‘if it were not assize time he would not take that language from him’. However, as it was assize time (i.e. the judges were in town) that cancelled out his threat, so the claimant could not reasonably apprehend force. The case also shows that there must actually be a threat and not just a conditional threat

Question 13

R v Wilson [1955]

Answer 13

Defendant said “get the knives out”.

Held: This counted as assault.

Question 14

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2009]

Answer 14

Prison officers at a prison went on strike. As a result, Iqbal was locked up 24/7 for a few days. The question for the court was whether or not Iqbal had been falsely imprisoned.
Held: Prison Officers have not duty to release the prisoners and let them out, so when they do not let prisoners out of their cells they are not falsely imprisoning them. Thus, Iqbal lost his claim.

Question 15

Bird v Jones (1845)

Answer 15

Bird was stopped from crossing a bridge as a boat race was going on and to access the bridge you had to pay.
Held: The court said that this was not false imprisonment because his movement was not totally restricted. Patterson J put it succinctly: “imprisonment… is a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will”

Question 16

Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988]

Answer 16

The claimant was suspected of raising money for arms for the IRA. The army attended her house at 7am to arrest her. When the claimant asked if she was under arrest, the corporal did not reply. Before leaving the house at 7.30 am, the corporal told the claimant that she was under arrest. Claimed that her restraint until 7.30 am was false imprisonment as she did not know that she was to be arrested.
Held: not accepted by the court as it was reasonable to wait that amount of time.

Question 17

Archibald Nugent Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Company, Ltd [1910]

Answer 17

The claimant refused to pay one penny to leave a ferry. The claimant sued the defendant company for false imprisonment.
Held: claim failed, not completely restricted.

Question 18

Wilkinson v Downton [1897]

Answer 18

A man, by way of practical joke, went up to a married woman and said her husband has had a serious accident and both his legs are broken. He intended her to believe it and she did believe it, causing her to suffer a violent nervous shock as a result.
Held: Although there is no battery or assault, he did something to cause a reaction, which caused her harm, so she was able to sue.

Question 19

Wainwright v Home Office [2002]

Answer 19

The claimants were a mother and her son who suffered from learning difficulties. Both had gone to visit the mother’s other son at Armley Prison in Leeds. They were taken to one side to be searched on suspicion of smuggling in drugs. Both claimants had suffered emotional distress.
Held: both had consented to be searched so could not claim battery. Applying the Wilkinson v Downton rule, the judge at first instance awarded damages to both claimants. The Home Office appeal was allowed.

Question 20

Chatterton v Gerson [1981]

Answer 20

The doctor failed to explain possible consequences of an operation on a first operation, and on a subsequent corrective operation.
Held: The failure to explain the general nature of an operation made the patient’s consent void.

Question 21

In Re F [1990]

Answer 21

Defendant branded his initials into his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife.
Held: It was further held that consensual activity between a husband and wife in the privacy of their own home was not a matter for criminal investigation or conviction. Therefore, consent was a valid defence to s 47. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed.

Question 22

Lane v Holloway [1968]

Answer 22

This case involved an altercation between a 23-year old male defendant, and a 64 year old male claimant. The older man verbally abused the defendant’s wife. Upon the claimant striking the defendant, the defendant retaliated with such force that the claimant required hospitalisation
Held: Defendant’s attempts at defence were unsuccessful as his reaction had been out of proportion to the attack upon him by the elderly claimant.

Question 23

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)

Answer 23

The appellant drank a bottle of ginger beer which was bought for her by her friend. The bottle was opaque and after she had drunk most of it she discovered it contained the remains of a decomposed snail. The appellant instead sought to sue the manufacturer, alleging that she had suffered shock and severe gastro-enteritis as a result.
Held: The House of Lords held that a manufacturer was under a duty to the final purchaser or consumer to take reasonable care to ensure the article was free from any defect which would be injurious.

Question 24

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co [1970]

Answer 24

A group of young offenders were on an island and the officers, instead of supervising them, went to bed. Seven offenders decided to escape and took a yacht which collided with another yacht owned by the claimant. The offenders were unlikely to have any money to pay compensation, so an action was instead bought against the Home Office.
Held: There was negligence, the police officers had a duty of care in the particular given circumstances.

Question 25

White v Jones [1995]

Answer 25

The claimants quarrelled with their father and then reconciled. Father called his solicitors to ask them to change his will to give his daughters each £9,000. Despite calling to remind his solicitor two months later, the will was not altered in time, and the father died. The claimants brought an action in negligence against the solicitors alleging that a duty of care was owed to them. Held: There was a duty of care, and there negligence.

Question 26

Anns v Merton LBC [1978]

Answer 26

Council failed to take care in inspecting the building, which meant the building was not stable. The claimant claimed for the cost of repair of each individual flat in the building. Held: Lord Wilberforce said that we do not need to look for a prior category of duty to see if a duty of care exist; we just need a test to determine whether there is a duty

Question 27

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]

Answer 27

An auditing firm was negligent in auditing the books of Fidelity. Caparo took over Fidelity, and then conducted another audit of the company and find there is in fact substantial loss. Caparo claims they paid too much for the shares and suffered a financial loss and is alleged the accountants owed a duty of care to investors and potential investors. Held: The House of Lords held that no duty of care was owed by the auditors to those who are contemplating making a purchase of shares. The House of Lords also created the leading authority on the test for duty of care. ⇒ Lord Oliver said a duty of care may be imposed if 3 requirements are satisfied (a three-stage test): 1. The claimant must be reasonably foreseeable 2. There must be a proximity of relationship between the claimant and the defendant 3. Must be fair, just, and reasonable

Question 28

Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2005]

Answer 28

Claimant was present at the racist killing of his friend Stephen Lawrence, and was also been subjected to abuse and attacks. He brought a claim against the Commissioner for the failure to provide him adequate protection, support and assistance. He suffered ptsd which he claimed was exacerbated by the treatment he received from the police. Held: Ultimately the claim failed. The case of Hill v CC Yorkshire precluded the imposition of a duty of care.

Question 29

Murphy v Brentwood (1991)

Answer 29

The defendant local authority had negligently approved plans for the footings of a house. The claimant purchased the property, but some time afterwards it began to subside as a result of defects in the footings. The claimant was unable to afford the required repairs, and was forced to sell the property as a loss. He also claimed damages for the health and safety risk which the defects had caused to himself and his family during the time they lived at the property. Held: as the damage suffered by the claimant was neither material nor physical but purely economic, the defendant was not liable in negligence.

Question 30

Cassidy v Ministry of Health (1951)

Answer 30

Doctor and patient relationship has a duty of care

Question 31

Wilson v English (1938)

Answer 31

Employer and employee relationship has a duty of care

Question 32

ICI v Shatwell (1965)

Answer 32

Employee - employee relationship has a duty of care

Question 33

Alexandrou v Oxford (1993)

Answer 33

Police – No duty to attend a call.

Question 34

Kent v Griffiths (2000)

Answer 34

Ambulance Service – If they respond it must be in a reasonable time

Question 35

Capital Counties v Hampshire (1996)

Answer 35

Fire Service – Rescuers have a duty to not make things worse.

Question 36

OLL v SoS for the Home Department (1997)

Answer 36

Coastguard – No duty is owed unless they make a situation worse.

Question 37

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (2018)

Answer 37

Officers attempted to arrest a suspected drug dealer on a moderately busy high street. A struggle followed with both the officers and the suspect falling to the ground, colliding with the Claimant and in doing so causing injury. Held: If a third party, such as a pedestrian, is injured because of a negligent arrest on the street by a police officer, the police are liable in negligence if the act of the third party, causing the subsequent injury, was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the police officer’s actions.

Question 38

Rigby v Chief Constable of Northampton [1985]

Answer 38

A dangerous psychopath went into a building that sold guns. The police fired canisters of CS gas into the building and it caused the building to set alight: so the building was destroyed by the action of the police. Held: The court considered this: should the police have acquired new CS gas canisters that did not have the risk of causing damage to the building? This came under a policy matter in terms of allocation of resources, so the court held that they were not negligent for not getting better CS canisters

Question 39

Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987]

Answer 39

There was a disused cinema which people went into and vandalised and started small fires. One day, they started a big fire that destroyed the neighbouring building. As they could not sue the children, the claimant sued the owner of the building which was being vandalised. Held: It was held that Littlewoods were not liable because they did not know their land was being misused. Lord Goff: “the common law does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions"

Question 40

Stansbie v Troman [1948]

Answer 40

Contractual duty – Decorator left the house unlocked and as a result the house was robbed. Held: There was a duty of care.

Question 41

Cattley v St John Ambulance Brigade (1988)

Answer 41

This case involved an allegation of negligence against two members of the St John’s Ambulance Brigade. It was alleged that the plaintiff’s spinal injuries were made worse by the negligent way he was treated by the St John’s members immediately after his fall from a motor cycle at a schoolboy motor scrambling event. Held: Not negligent. Held to the standard of a reasonably competent first aider.

Question 42

Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2000]

Answer 42

There was someone who was a known suicide risk who was put in custody. In 7 minutes following a check, the prisoner hanged himself. His wife sued the police on the basis that they had a duty of care. Held: the police were responsible for the death as that person was in custody.

Question 43

Barret v Ministry of Defence [1995] 1 WLR 1217

Answer 43

A man got very drunk at a Navy base and was moved to a separate room and left there. He choke on his vomit and died. The wife of the man sued. Held: When they saw him collapse and moved him (as they assumed responsibility), they then had a duty of care. If they had not seen him and did not try to help, that would have been omission and there would have been no liability.

Question 44

Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [1997]

Answer 44

The informant had received threats from a violent suspect after her contact details were stolen from an unattended police car. Held: Negligence, the police had assumed responsibility for informant’s safety.

Question 45

An Informer v A Chief Constable (2012)

Answer 45

The informer claimed economic loss due to his identity becoming known. Held: No duty of care for police to direct economic loss.

Question 46

Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria (1999)

Answer 46

Female police officer attacked by inmate. The police officer outside did not intervene despite him being aware of the attack, and it being his specific duty to intervene if she was attacked by inmate. As a result claimant suffered injury. Held: There was a duty of care.

Question 47

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988]

Answer 47

The police had the Yorkshire ripper in custody, but they did not have enough information on which to charge him, so they released him. The Yorkshire ripper then went and killed Hill’s daughter. Held: The court found that there was insufficient proximity between the police and victim. No negligence.

Question 48

Osman v Ferguson [1993]

Answer 48

Osman was at school. A school teacher developed an unhealthy interest in the boy. The parents reported the teacher to the police, but the police took no action. The police were called on several occasions and the teacher had told the police that he was unable to control himself and would do something which was criminally insane if he was not stopped. Eventually, the teacher shot Osman and his father. Osman survived but his father did not. Osman bought an action for the personal injuries he suffered as a result of the police force's failure to apprehend the teacher. Held: Successful. The police will be negligent if they knew or ought to have known that a specific person's life was at risk and failed to do anything about it.

Question 49

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015]

Answer 49

Man bit ex-partner bit her ear and drove off with the other man, but said he would come back to kill her. She phoned the police, but the police operators were not really paying much attention and were a bit slow passing it on to different operators - so the police were slow to respond. Once the police finally arrived he'd already killed her. Held: The majority dismissed the negligence claim - they decided this because this came under a policy matter

Question 50

Leach v Chief Constable of Gloucester (1999)

Answer 50

The plaintiff had acted as the 'appropriate adult' during the police questioning of Fred West. Claimed to suffer psychiatric distress following this. Held: No duty of care from police. Risk was predictable, but to impose a duty of care would impede on the police’s job.

Question 51

X v Bedfordshire CC [1995]

Answer 51

This case was an action by nine children for breach of statutory duty and negligence by the local authorities, for carelessness in deciding whether to take children into care, and for failing to assess special education needs carefully. Held: Since the statutes gave the authorities discretion as to how their duties were to be performed, they were not liable in negligence.

Question 52

Hall v Brooklands Auto Racing [1933]

Answer 52

Greer LJ: The reasonable person is “the man in the Clapham Omnibus”

Question 53

Glasgow Corporation v Muir (1943)

Answer 53

Facts: Sunday school children were going to have a picnic, but it rained. The Outing leader asked a tearoom manager if they could have their picnic there. A tea urn overturned and scalded a girl. The parents of the girl sued Glasgow Corporation, claiming they owed the girl a duty of care and they had breached this. Held: It was held that the managers owed a duty of care generally to the people in the tea room, BUT, did not owe an additional duty of care to the Sunday School: they were not expecting them.

Question 54

Bolton v Stone (1951)

Answer 54

During a cricket match the ball was hit over a 17ft fence and struck a woman who was standing on a pavement. The ball had only been hit over this fence 6 times in 30 years. Held: The court said you cannot minimise every single risk. So the fact that the likelihood of the ball being struck of the fence was very slim they were not liable (but, if it happened a lot then there may have been liability).

Question 55

Carmarthenshire CC v Lewis (1955)

Answer 55

The claimant was the wife of a lorry driver killed whilst trying to avoid a child in the road. Whilst the teacher was attending to a hurt child and was distracted, the other child wandered out of the school building and through an open gate onto the road. Held: It was held that the duty owed by the teacher was that of a careful parent and, in the circumstances, the teacher had acted in a manner consistent with this duty. The accident was not found to be the teacher’s fault. BUT the ease of the child leaving the school showed a lack of proper precautions. So the council must be held liable for the cause of the crash.

Question 56

Nettleship v Weston (1969)

Answer 56

A friend took a learner driver out on a practice drive. The learner panicked and drove into a tree. This did significant damage to the claimant's leg. The issue was whether or not the earner should be judged to same standard as a normal driver. Held: Legally it was held that the learner was as competent as a normally skilled driver, so the learner driver was negligent.

Question 57

Wilsher v Essex (1987)

Answer 57

Junior Doctor, needle into baby, hit vein not artery. | Held: The defendant was held to standard of regular doctor. “Act not the actor”

Question 58

Philips v William Whitely (1938)

Answer 58

The claimant had their ears pierced at a jewellers and subsequently developed an infection from the hole in her ear, and alleged that this was due to the piercing procedure having been performed negligently by the jeweller. Held: The court held that the standard of care owed in such circumstances was that of a reasonable jeweller, not that of a reasonable doctor or surgeon.

Question 59

Wells v Cooper (1958)

Answer 59

A doorhandle falling off causing the visitor to fall down the stairs. So, they sue the owner arguing that they breached the standard of care required when fitting door handles to doors. Held: The court said that the defendant was to be judged in comparison with a reasonably skilled amateur carpenter rather than a professional one.

Question 60

Roberts v Ramsbottom (1980)

Answer 60

Driving whilst having a stroke, had three collisions. Held: The two proceeding collisions and the defendants own feelings indicated something was wrong, so held that there was breach of duty.

Question 61

Mansfield v Weetabix (1998)

Answer 61

Illness while driving, caused collision. Held: The driver was completely unaware of his condition and had never suffered it before so not recognise the symptoms, so not breach.

Question 62

Dunnage v Randall (2015)

Answer 62

Schizophrenic man set self on fire, injured nephew. Held: Defendant was held to standard of non-mentally ill, as was held he still had some awareness of his actions, despite his illness.

Question 63

Mullins v Richards (1998)

Answer 63

``` Two schoolgirls (15yos) were having a sword fight with plastic rulers. One rule snapped and stuck in one girl’s eye which caused significant damage Held: The court said because they are 15yos they don't appreciate the risk so should be held against the standard of a reasonable 15yo schoolgirl. No breach. ```

Question 64

Orchard v Lee (2009)

Answer 64

Some children were playing tag in the playground. One boy who was playing ran straight into a teacher causing her personal injury. Held: The court took into consideration the standard of a reasonable 13 year old boy.

Question 65

Condon v Basi (1985)

Answer 65

Football tackle, caused injury. | Held: Sports cases - to standard of local league this was reckless.

Question 66

Watson v Gray (1998)

Answer 66

Football tackle, led to a broken leg. | Held: Sports cases – even with appreciation for the competitive nature of the sport this was held to be reckless

Question 67

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management (1957)

Answer 67

Bolam was a mentally ill patient, one of the treatments he received was ECT. There was some debate, and there still is, about the safest way to administer the ECT. Bolam suffered significant injury and said that had another method been used he would not have suffered injury. Held: Case failed because the doctors were using a recognised practice at the time. “It is not essential for you to decide which of two practices is better practice, as long as you accept that what the defendant did was in accordance with practice accepted by reasonable persons” - McNair J

Question 68

Roe v Minister of Health [1954]

Answer 68

The claimant had been anaesthetised for an operation by a specialist anaesthetist, using the drug nupercaine, which was injected into the spine. Unknown to the anaesthetist, the drug had been in a damaged container and had become contaminated with phenol, which, when injected into the claimant’s spine, caused permanent paralysis from the waist down. Held: since there was no way at the time of the incident that the medical staff could have known or foreseen this, they could not be said to have breached their duty of care.

Question 69

Maynard v West Midlands (1984)

Answer 69

Defendants examined a patient in their care, and concluded that while the most likely diagnosis for the claimant’s illness was tuberculosis, there were other possibilities, one of which was Hodgkin’s disease. Since Hodgkin’s disease was potentially fatal if not treated immediately, both decided to perform an operation on the claimant immediately, rather than wait for the results of tests. The procedure concerned was inherently risky, and although it was performed correctly the claimant was injured as a result of it. Held: negligence could not be established simply by identifying a substantial body of medical opinion that thought the treatment had been incorrect, if there was an equally substantial body of opinion that supported the action taken by the consultants. Thus, in this case, there had been no breach of duty.

Question 70

Re Herald of Free Enterprise (1987)

Answer 70

Ferry sunk due to bow doors not closed. The ferry company claimed that this was common practise. Held: Judges disregarded expert advice, as no good reason for doors to be left open, so held there was a breach.

Question 71

Bolitho v City and Hackney HA (1998)

Answer 71

A boy suffered brain damage after a doctor failed to attend. The defendant argued that his decision could be confirmed as accepted practice by a reliable and respectable body of opinion. Held: The courts held that so long as the experts have ‘reached a defensible conclusion’ then they would not be liable.

Question 72

Wagon Mound No 2 (1967)

Answer 72

Ship discharged oil in water, ultimately led to a fire which caused damage. Held: there was a breach, as no good reason for the ship to do this, and precautions were very easy.

Question 73

Pearson v Lightning (1998)

Answer 73

During a game of golf. Difficult shot, likely to ricochet and hit spectator. This happened and caused injury. Held: there was a breach as outcome was likely and precaution was easy.

Question 74

Haley v London Electricity Board (1965)

Answer 74

Road repairs left a spanner in the road and a blind person tripped on it and injured themselves. The question was whether or not a duty of care was owed to the blind people of London. Held: The court said it was foreseeable: just because blind persons constitute only a small percentage of the population does not make them unforeseeable. There was a breach.

Question 75

Paris v Stepney BC (1951)

Answer 75

Mechanic struck in the eye; in fact, he only had one good eye and the bolt struck that eye, which was serious as it meant he went completely blind. Furthermore, no protective goggles had been given to him. Held: The court said that providing goggles don't cost much and the consequences are really serious, so breach of duty.

Question 76

Watson v British Boxing Board (2001

Answer 76

Facts: The claimant was a professional boxer who sustained head injuries during a professional fight that was regulated by the defendants. He was treated by doctors beside the ring, by the time he underwent surgery, he had suffered permanent brain damage. The claimant brought an action claiming that the defendants had been negligent in failing to provide resuscitation equipment ringside. Held: There was a breach of duty.

Question 77

Latimer v AEC (1953)

Answer 77

There was an exceptionally heavy rainstorm which flooded the factory floor and oil. The employer took a lot of precautions following the incident, which included putting down sawdust and putting up notices warning people. The plaintiff slipped and was injured. Held: The House of Lords held that the defendant was not negligent because they had done everything they could to minimise the risk aside from closing down the factory which was considered unreasonable.

Question 78

Knight v Home Office (1990)

Answer 78

The claimant's husband committed suicide while detained in a prison hospital. Held: It as held that the standard of care of the hospital may have fallen below that expected in an NHS psychiatric facility, but they still dismissed the claim. The court will take into account the finances available to the defendant in determining whether or not he/she has breached their duty of care.

Question 79

Daborn v Bath Tramways [1946]

Answer 79

Left hand ambulance driven in wartime as no others were available. Held: this was a reasonable risk to take, so no breach.

Question 80

Ward v London (1938)

Answer 80

Car crash caused by a fire engine that went through a red light in an attempt to get to the scene of an emergency more quickly. Held: the risks taken by the driver of the fire engine were not outweighed by the potential benefits of arriving more quickly at the emergency scene, and there had thus been a breach of duty.

Question 81

Watt v Hertfordshire CC (1954)

Answer 81

A fireman who was travelling with heavy-lifting equipment in a lorry that had not been outfitted for carrying such equipment was injured when, while the lorry was rushing to the scene of an emergency, the heavy equipment came unsecured and caught his ankle. Held: The Court of Appeal held that the risk of injury was relatively minor compared with the potential benefit to be gained from arriving quickly at the scene of the emergency, where a woman was trapped, and that there had thus been no breach of duty

Question 82

Mahon v Osborne [1939]

Answer 82

A patient died three months after undergoing an operation in hospital, surgical swabs had been left inside the patient’s body after the surgery and caused the death of the patient. The patient’s mother brought an action alleging negligence on the part of the surgeon. Held: The Court of Appeal said negligence had been established.

Question 83

Cole v Turner (1704)

Answer 83

It was stressed that the least touching of another amounts to an application of force

Question 84

Nash v Sheen [1953]

Answer 84

Where a hairdresser who dyed her client’s hair without consent when she visited the salon for a perm was held to be a battery.

Question 85

Dodwell v Burford (1670)

Answer 85

Is a direct act if defendant hit the horse, then Claimant fell off. Doesn’t have to be direct contact between defendant and claimant

Question 86

Cockroft v Smith [1705]

Answer 86

For self-defence the force used must also be proportionate: the claimant’s act of trying to poke out the defendant’s eye did not justify the defendant biting off the claimant’s finger in response.

Question 87

Re A (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment) [2001]

Answer 87

Had to separate the twins ensuring that one would die, but if the procedure was not done then both would die