Case law cards Flashcards
(17 cards)
practicability case and legal decision
Adsett vs k an l steel founders
Foundry, dust extraction not invented (practical)
meaning of practicable (must be done despite cost and effort)
foundry dust and no technology
Marshall vs Gotham
difference between practicable and so
Far as is reasonably practicable. geological defect in rock.
Edwards vs national coal board
meaning of so far as is reasonably practicable, time cost and effort. Greater risk more time and effort required.
Minor died when section collapsed
it was reasonable to shore up all of the mine works
strict liability
Rylands vs Fletcher
tort- escape of stored materials
person for who holds and keeps anything on their land is also responsible for its escape
Cambridge water co vs eastern counties leather
development of Rylands, liability does not apply retrospectively in absence of forseeeability of harm could not foresee tannery leaking into water course.
Duty of care
neighbor test
Donoghue vs stevenson
neighbor principle (duty of manufacturer to consumer)
tort of negligence
lord atkins who is my neighbour?
persons who are closely and directly affected by my acts or omissions. manafucturer duty to end user.
caparo vs dickman
three stage test neighbour principle
proximety
resonableness
resonably forseeability
safe systems of work
willsons and clyde coal vs english
Ssow/ common law duty of care
Crushed between equipment and wall of mine,
Judge ruled employers duty to provide safe place of work, ssow and safe plant and equipment, and provision of competent staff.
Also ruled that this duty is non delegable, performing duties can be delegated, responsibilities of discharging them can’t.
speed vs swift
employers responsibility to provide, and elements of a ssow
Unloading cargo from ship, starboard rail broke, port winch broke.
general cleaning contractors vs xmas
company negligent for not providing ssow of testing windows, not negligent of supplying ladders etc. Employers duty to consider the system and all elements of it, window wedges and hooks.
Foreseeable (stress)
date of knowledge
Duty to protect employees
walker vs northumberkalnd county council
first awarded damages for psychiatric injury
complained of stress and had two breakdowns
sutherland vs hatton
stress of work, four other cases
thompson and sons ship repairs
Several employers got hearing problems but not measurement and hearing protection available at time. Employers out things in place as soon as risk are known.
employers duty to protect employees from known and reasonably foreseeable danger, date of knowledge at risk
Work equipment
Davie vs new Merton board mills
chisel/drift
employer not liable when injury leads from latent defect in tools or equipment, (led to employers liability defective equipment act. this act then decided that if tools or equipment are supplied by employer then employer can be liable, howvere nay damages paid by the employer can be claimed back from the manufacturer.
Bradford vs Robinson
frostbite/ van, no heating in van
employers liability to supply necessary plant/ equipment. Also exposed to a reasonable foreseeable risk the cold.
barkway vs south wales transport
tyre exploded, coach crash and man killed
employers duty to maintain work equipment, company had system for insp an test tyres however had no system for drivers to report incidents where Tyres could be damaged.
knowles vs lcc
Negligence breach of common law duty of care supply safe work equipment.
Employers liability defective equipment act, material used as WE eg paving stone broken. Also employers liability defective equipment act.
machray vs stewarts and loyds
employers liability for sufficient plant
Statutory duty
absolute duty
Claim of tort, breach did not lead to the loss.
Contributory negligence.
Safe place of work
Employee or contractor
j summers vs frost
frost injured finger on grinding wheel
factories act held that all moving parts should be guarded (absoulte duty) even if it prevented the machine to be used
corn vs weir glass
slipped carrying pain of glass, claimed no hand rail, ruled that even if a hand rail had been fitted that would of prevented him from carrying the glass. Would of been Bosd under factories act but did not pursue this
Udding vs associated Portland cement
pigeon,
went into part of factory where he was not allowed, climbed up and and fell into unguarded machinery. 20/80 split 20 cn
Latimer vs aec
Safe place of work including access. Factories act.
Ferguson vs Dawson partners.
No guard rail construction regs, still employee even if contractor. Fell off flat roof.
Safe place of work
Paine vs colne valley electricals
employers duty to provide safe place of work. electrical kiosk incorrectly insulated. Also Bosd factories act safe place of work
Latimer vs AEC
practicability of precautions
flooded, covered floor but plaintiff slipped, doing this negated the negligence
Bosd safe place of work and access and egress
Vicarious liability
rose vs plenty
milkman against company orders, took 23 old on, 13 injured by driving. boy sued milkman and dairy, trial judge found dairy not liable, appeal found diary vicariously liable.
Lister vs romford ice
father and son, son negligently handled vehicle injuring father, father sued company and his son.
companies insurance company successfully sued for damages against son
mersey docks and harbor board vs coggins and griffin
crane hired and crashed, crane companies contract stated driver was hires employee for the day, judgement drivers work had not passed to the hires crane company still liable. Extent to which employer vic liable for contractor, master servant relationship.
also smith vs crossley
Horseplay/ competence
smith vs crossly
extreme act of horseplay, anus. employers not liable for negligence, employees acted negligently on a frolic/ Independently from job
Hudson vs ridge
employers duty to provide competent fellow employees/ horseply
Tresspassers
British railways vs Herrington
boy went through hole in fence
duty towards trespassers, OLA
senior managers
J armour vs skeen
armour director of roads, worker fell to his death
corporate faile to have ssow Hasawa 2
armour not director but was in scope of hasawa section 37
r vs British steel
sub contractor working under supervisor of british steel was killed, vicarious liable as supervisor failed his duty, therefore British steel had failed its employers duties unders s3
contractors
R vs swan hunter
8 workers killed during oxygen enriched explosion, swan hunter informed its own employees of risks but not contractors or sub cont, Swan hunter had duty H’S of its employees, Hasawa S3
R vs associated octel
employee of contractor badly burned in chemical tank,
contractor prosecuted under section 2
octel prosecuted under s 3, it was on their site and they had some control.
Volenti
barker vs te hopkins and sons. Non applicable volenti, doctor fumes
Smith vs baker and sons
ICI vs shatwell
2 employees killed when ignored explosive regs
Complete acceptance of risk, volenti applies
Greater duty to vulnerable persons
Paris vs Stepney borough council
Blind but concealed when examined by doctor.
Got struck in good eye
Court of appeal ruled company should of protected good eye, googles
Employees
Self employed regarded as employees
Higher duty of care on experienced employees
Ferguson vs john Dawson
Sub contractor freguson working for Dawson, fell due to no guard rail, Working on flat roof.
Bosd construction regs, no guard rail. Also neighbor as was employee even if sub contractor.
Qualcast ltd vs Haynes
Experienced molten worker, dropped molten metal on foot, not wearing spats, company had them but he chose not to wear them. Contributory negligence.
Occupiers liability
Wheat vs lacon
Killed when Fell down a staircase.
Removed light bulb
1957 occ
Controller of premises
No liability, both third party and owner are occupiers.
