Cases Flashcards

Question

lake dive tetraplegia

Answer 1

Tomlinson v Congleton BC: young man disobeyed 'no swimming' signs and dived headfirst into the lake, hit his head on the sandy bottom low probability of the injury happening, but the gravity should it manifest was high; would have been expensive to put up more signs, and social utility would be highly compromised if the beach was to be dug up and prickly bushes set up- no breach what D may have considered necessary to do, pre-accident, does not prove a breach of duty OLA suit he fell under the 1984 Act because the moment he dived into the lake in disobedience of the signs he became a trespasser was also a fairly obvious risk- no breach

Answer 2

Collins-Williamson v Silverlink Train Services: passenger mucking around on the platform, drunk; train left platform, too close fell between train and platform, leg partially amputated extremely low probability, accident hadn't happened before, but gravity very high precautionary steps of increasing CCTV etc at stations very costly (significant) and there would be compromise of utility provided should there be more staff and CCTV - no systemic breach (but there was a breach for the train guard not alerting the driver, and Silver Trains were vicariously liable for that- although CN was found) Vicariously liable D was able to rely on the CN for their damages to be deducted

Answer 3

McGhee v National Coal Board: there was one agent (brick dust) of the industrial dermatitis but a guilty cause and an innocent cause Court held causation was satisfied even though he could not get over the balance of probabilities causation Test made out - (1) there should be only one agent that could've caused the harm, to which C was exposed both by breach and innocently - (2) D failed to take precautions against the risk of the agent causing the harm - (3) breach preceded C suffering the harm the agent causes (make sure the injury is not coincidental - (4) C cannot prove on the balance of probability which one caused the injury - (5) highest C can prove is that D materially increased the risk of harm to him

Answer 4

McKew v Holland and Hannen Ltd: C had a bad leg, walked up steep staircase while carrying a child, fell and suffered another leg injury- he had taken an unreasonable risk and so D could not be liable for the injury- intervening act

Answer 5

Jolley v Sutton LBC: C and his friend wanted to repair a cruiser, it started rocking and fell on C, he broke his back Remoteness- not remote because the type of damage was foreseeable (breaking his back- e.g. by falling through the broken deck) even if the way it happened (cruiser falling on him) was not OLA case: children to be expected to be less careful than adults there was a warning but it simply said not to touch it, an adult could perceive the sign as warning danger but it was insufficient for children to be warned of the danger

Answer 6

Smith v Leech Brain & Co: C should've been provided with protective clothing but wasn't, a piece of molten metal burnt him on the lip, he was pre-disposed to formation of cancerous cells on his lip which was activated by the burns, developed cancer and died at the time of trial it was reasonably foreseeable that any employee would suffer some personal injury as a result of the accident (burns), so D was still liable for the cancer, having to take C the way they found him

Answer 7

Froom v Butcher: all the causal link requires it the injury, not causing the accident reduction for failing to wear a seatbelt will be 15-25%, never more than 25%

Answer 8

Morris v Murray: C and D quite drunk, decided they should go fly D's aircraft C was an active participant, was seriously injured when the plane plummeted (D died) CA upheld pleading of volenti from D's estate- C, going into the plane with a drunk pilot, had the whole blame/injury resting on his shoulders although C was drunk, he was held at the standard of an objective appreciation of the risks he impliedly consented, he drove them to the air field- he consented voluntarily preserves the duty because D owed C a duty to fly the plane with reasonable care, not to stop him from getting into the plane in the first place

Answer 9

Young v Kent CC: used to go to a school for after-school care, during which he would play football, the ball would often find itself on the roof, C climbed up onto the roof, jumped up and down and the roof broke, he suffered severe injury premises were defective due to the brittle skylight C was always a trespasser because there was never any permission by the school for students to go on the roof DoC: - (a) schoolteachers were aware the ball managed to find itself onto the roof and children would go to retrieve it - (b) also knowledge that kids were in the vicinity of danger - (c) duty was proven Breach: - Cost of precautionary steps was really cheap, could have reasonably easily stopped the child

Answer 10

Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust: C was visiting building near the hospital, which had a ladder, he climbed it and then for some reason lost his footing and fell Held the height was dangerous but not defective- OLA did not apply Court went on to consider that if they were wrong, C entered the grounds as a visitor but the moment he climbed the external ladder where it was sealed off and obviously intended not to be accessed, he became a trespasser and slipped into the bound of the 84 Act DoC requirements - (a) accepted by the court that D was aware of the danger posed by the ladder, and knew that the security guards did not customarily check on it - (b) hospital was aware that people occasionally gained access to the ladder - (c) possible to prove duty Breach: - No breach, must consider the resources and the what they should primarily be implemented for (the care of patients and payment of staff, not child-proofing NHS buildings up and down the country

Answer 11

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd: ex-navy seal diver, dived into the harbour and hit his head on grid piles which he did not know were there premises were defective as well as dangerous because when the tide was in the grid piles couldn't be seen, so there should have been some kind of notification Doc: NONE owed as failed on 1(3)(b)- knowledge of C being there was time specific, D would not have reasonable grounds to know or believe that someone would be there on cold evening around Christmas-time (c)- not necessary for a reasonable harbour operator to prevent him from diving in, he was an adult and highly experienced navy seal diver well aware of the dangers

Answer 12

Rhind v Astbury Water Park: C dived into the lake and hit his head, turned out he had not hit his head on the bottom of the lake but on a container embedded there dangerous and defective premises C became a trespasser the moment he dived into the lake DoC: no way for (a) to be met as there was no way for occupiers to know or have reason to believe that the container was there

Answer 13

Darby v The National Trust: C visited with his family, car park had a small sign which said no boating or swimming in the lake, he went for a swim, was murky, he drowned he was held to remain a visitor because the sign had been very small and the car park was very far from the lake, common DoC was owed to him by statute breach: allegation that more signs should've been put up, but it was an obvious risk as the lake looked dangerous, signs would not have told C anything he didn't already know no need for warning signs because the risk was so obvious

Answer 14

Cooke v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland: turntable which C would sneak in and play on, one day fell and suffered injury, D knew that kids would often go inside and play on it, the effect being that the child who was a trespasser at first glance was elevated to that of implied licensee (common usage of access + occupier being aware and tolerating it

Answer 15

Maloney v Torfaen CBC: C left pub, took a short cut down a grassy embankment, alleged he was not a trespasser and that he had an implied licence, because there was a defined pathway along the grass which showed toleration of this being used as a pathway, but he failed because there was no evidence it was used by others, appearance of the pathway was very faint, was not sufficient basis for the claim that there was toleration

Answer 16

Apres Lounge Ltd v Wade: C slipped on liquid on the floor, alleging that staff ought to have a system of checking spillages- system in place was already quite good, held that the standard expected was a reasonable one, not an onerous one (no breach) attempt to plea res ipsa loquitor failed- although it was not plain what C had slipped on the allegation was rebutted

Answer 17

Roles v Nathan: Cs were two chimney sweeps, had been warned about carbon monoxide fumes and were warned not to go in, but went in anyway and died Denning made the point that had the stairs given way it would not have been incidental to the calling, but carbon monoxide was incidental to their work

Answer 18

Woollins v British Celanese Ltd: C was specialist in electrical engineering, had to access the roof but ceiling was unstable; there was a sign behind the door saying it was unstable but he didn't see it (because it was behind the door) and he plunged through the ceiling D could not rely on the escape hatch (s 2(3)(b) because the risk was not incidental to C's work D could not rely on the escape hatch (s 2(4)(a)) because the sign was tucked behind a door- insufficient

Answer 19

Stovin v Wise: D did not bring about the configuration and poor visibility of the road- carelessly failing to remove the danger was a pure omission and did not create a duty of care on D's part It was not fair, just, and reasonable to impose a DoC in these circumstances because an unacceptable burden would be placed on the local authority's budget

Answer 20

Capital & Countries plc v Hampshire CC: fire brigade only owes a duty if they increase the risk of danger, where they would be liable in respect of damage caused by the increased risk (unless damage would have occurred in any event) "the fire brigade are not under a common law duty to answer the call for help, and are not under a duty to take care to do so. If, therefore, they fail to turn up, or fail to turn up on time, because they have carelessly misunderstood the message, got lost on the way or run into a tree, they are not liable" Fire broke out where C ran a computer-related business, D shut down the sprinkler system before the seat of the fire was located (against the rules) which allowed the fire to spread rapidly (£16million in damage) D was held to owe C a DoC because they when the brigade 'created or increased the danger. There is no ground for giving immunity in such a case' By ordering the system to be turned off prematurely they made the situation far worse

Answer 21

Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police: Police were phoned for help when driver lost control of black ice and ran off road Police arrived, placed one POLICE SLOW sign, saw the driver go off to hospital, left the scene taking the sign with them Soon after, another driver skidded on the ice, collided with C and they were both killed C sued police but was unsuccessful There was no communication between the police and T and so there was nothing on which an assumption of responsibility could be based

Answer 22

Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock: police had been aware of many attacks or threats to C by her ex-partner, frequently been called to assist her, neighbour phoned to say he was outside and she would be leaving for work Police hurried to the house but was too late, police did not call to warn her Held the police had not assumed any specific responsibility to call her if a threat appeared imminent

Answer 23

N v Poole BC: mother and 2 children (eldest had severe learning disabilities; council provided various services for the benefit of the child) neighbours attacked and tormented the family, from which younger child developed psychiatric problems and threatened suicide SC held no DOC owed- council had not taken positive action in respect of the neighbours, and had not assumed any responsibility to protect the family against TPs

Answer 24

Cockram v Commissioner of Police: C was undertaking refresher course of arrest and restraint training (required by employer D); class was supposed to occur in a judo matted floor but was moved to a hall with a concrete floor; one just mat was provided for each pair, C hit the floor and hit his knee, permanent disability and medical treatment required negligence proven, two sub-duties or safe place of work and safe system of work were engaged and breached D should have provided C with not one mat, but two- a measure needed to provide C with a reasonably safe system of work

Answer 25

Hudson v Ridge Manufacturing Co Ltd: employee of D had been a habitual practical joke on fellow employees, tripping them up, repeatedly making a nuisance of himself, etc D had reprimanded him many times but he took no notice C, co-employee, was injured when tripped up by the practical joke Sub-duty to provide competent employees was engaged and breached D is under a duty to remove the danger if a fellow workman is not merely incompetent but is likely to be a source of danger to his fellow employees

Answer 26

Wilson v Tyneside Window Cleaning Co: DoC is the same when off-site C, highly experienced, worked for D as a window cleaner Cleaned a window which he knew was faulty, lost his balance tried to grab handle (which broke off) and fell He knew not to trust the handles but had never himself experienced a handle coming off D had never given any general safety instructions, or said anything specific about the handles Duty to provide safe system of work; safe workplace was engaged, but not breached D had told C not to clean any window which he considered unsafe D was not obliged to go further and inspect each window he considered unsafe D did not have any degree of control over the building and had done enough to exercise reasonable care to provide a safe system of work for its employees

Answer 27

Cox v Ministry of Justice: D1 was a prisoner who was working in prison kitchen, negligently dropped a sack on C (disobeying instructions) D2 (prison) vicariously liable for D1's tort Prisoners were integrated into the work of the prison Their work furthered the aims of the prison (providing meals to prisoners) They were in a position where there was a risk of negligent conduct They worked under direction of prison staff (They were also paid slightly)

Answer 28

Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council: council was held vicariously liable for the abuse perpetrated by foster parents on children entrusted by the council to their care but (obiter) would not be vicariously liable for the abuse perpetrated by family or friends with whom the children had been allowed by the council to stay Foster parents provided care for the children as an integral part of the council's child care services- council had a statutory obligation to care for these children

Answer 29

Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants and the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools: brother of the institute appointed headmaster of the school, no doubt he was an employee of the society that operated at the school but was he an employee of the Institute? He could still be in a relationship akin to employment despite not being paid: he was furthering its mission, it had quite a degree of control over the brothers' lives Reformulated the test for VL (the two steps we now know) Lord Philips identified factors that would make it fair, just, and reasonable to impose VL (identify relationship 'akin to employment' - D is more likely to have the resources to compensate C than the tortfeasor (T) - Tort committed as a result of activity being taken by T on behalf of D - T's activity was likely to have been part of D's business activities - D created the risk of the tort by employing T - D is likely to have some degree of control over T Possible for two employers to be vicariously liable

Answer 30

JGE v Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust: priest did not have an employment contract, but was integrated into the work of the church There was no contract of employment in the conventional sense, but he was nevertheless fully integrated into the church's work and its mission, was provided with robes and church premises and was carrying a mission not on his own account, but rather the church's mission to deliver the word of God relationship 'akin to employment'

Answer 31

Barclays Bank v Various Claimants: D1 carried out medical examinations at the request of Barclays Bank (D2) of prospective employees, he was paid a fee for each examination and could refuse a request. Each examination was a separate service D1 completed a form supplied by D2, being provided by them with the questions to ask The examinations took place at D1's home where he carried on a medical practice D1 was held to be an independent contractor in a similar position to that of a window cleaner who accepted work from the bank- in such circumstances not vicariously liable It was a job he did from time to time, paid as an independent contractor for his services, he could choose his clients and was paid per client- NOT akin to employment

Answer 32

Blackpool Football Club Ltd v DSN: D1 was a football scout spotting young talent, was touching kids and was held NOT to be in the course of employment or akin to employment It is not enough that D1 performs some useful function for D2, nor is it enough that the relationship between the two gave D1 the opportunity to commit the torts There must be some degree of control that D2 is able to exert over D1's activities, which this case lacked Court also held that there was no sufficient connection between the scout's activities and the sexual abuse

Answer 33

Trustees of Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB: C, member of JWs became friends with D1, a ministerial servant and later an elder (member of the congregation with special responsibilities) Not ordained as a priest- layperson pursuing his own job but worked for the purposes of the JWs, wasn't paid and wasn't even able to claim expenses D1 rapes C in his own home D1 held to be integral to the "business" of the JWs and the relationship was akin to employment- even though not paid was performing duties in furtherance of and integral to the aims and objective of D2, him not being paid was relevant but not decisive Later failed on the second step, HL unanimously held he was not in the course of his employment- he was not evangelising/giving pastoral support when he raped her, it was in his own home and had nothing to do with his services as a JW, he was not abusing his position as elder but rather abusing his position as family friend

Answer 34

Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd: bouncer at the club (borrower) approached customer and punched him He'd been recruited and trained by a firm, but had worked for the club for two years, the club paid for his services, he was effectively under their control and management Contract even specified he would wear the club's uniform (he looked like staff), he was taking directions from the manager of the club Borrower held to be the employer, the club was liable Court did not consider the possibility that both the club and the firm from which he was hired could be the employers

Answer 35

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd: C was sexually and physically abused by the warden of the care home for vulnerable children All the sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the warden's carrying out of his duties (to care for the welfare of the children in the home) Decision would probably have been different had it been carried out by the gardener- the warden's duty was to care for the boys, while a gardener's duty is to care for plants)

Answer 36

Beard v London General Omnibus Co: at the end of the journey the conductor decided to turn the bus round and in the course of that he caused an accident Held not to be acting in the course of his employment, his job was to collect fares and deal with passenger, NOT to drive the bus No VL

Answer 37

Storey v Ashton: driver turned in the opposite direction of the route for the convenience of a colleague who wanted to be taken home Carelessly knocked someone over- NOT in the course of employment because it was no the route he was employed to do

Answer 38

Williams v Hemphill: lorry driver whose job was to bring luggage home for a group of boys agreed at the boys' request to take them to help some girls put bags on the train There was a serious accident which injured the claimants Although it was a long way from the assigned route, the driver was still held to be acting in the course of his employment- if someone had stopped the driver and asked him what he was doing he would say he was taking them back to Glasgow, he had not yet finished his business and was doing it for the benefits and purposes of the passengers he had in the lorry

Answer 39

Smith v Stages: an employee driving from home to place of work and back again is not generally in the course of employment unless required contractually to use the employer's vehicle. An employee travelling in employer's time between work places is acting in the course of his employment (e.g. a social care worker going from house to house is more likely to be in the course of employment

Answer 40

Limpus v London General Omnibus Co: driver had been instructed not to race rival bus companies- he still did it and he was still held to be in the course of his employment

Answer 41

Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co: employee was a solicitor's clerk at a conveyance firm, he defrauded a client by getting her, without understanding of what she was doing, to convey the property to him He did what he was employed to do for his own benefit (and defrauded her) Employer still vicariously liable, even though he was doing it for his own financial benefit, it was the very thing he was employed to do

Answer 42

N v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police: policeman was off-duty, was not in an area where he worked, was wearing his uniform (which is often a sign of VL) He identified himself as a policeman to the staff of the nightclub and offered to take a very drunk girl to the police station and sober her up He instead took her home and photographed himself raping her while she was unconscious Held not to be a close enough connection to his work- although he was dressed as a policeman, he was off-duty and not in the area where he worked

Answer 43

Mattis v Pollock: bouncer had been trained and encouraged by the owners to adopt a particularly aggressive stance He got into an altercation with a customer, went home, got a knife, came back, and stabbed the customer so severely he was permanently paralysed Held to be in the course of employment- he was employed and specifically instructed by the nightclub manager to be particularly aggressive and forceful in carrying out his duties

Answer 44

Mohamud v W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC: customer went into the kiosk and asked to print off some documents, employee was really racist and aggressive, ordered him out, followed him to his car, subjected him to racial abuse Even though his supervisor tried to hold him back, he was still held to be in the course of employment- his duty was to deal with a customer even though his motivation was a private one Although D1 attacked C in his car, it was held to be part of a seamless incident where D1 was still carrying out his duties as a member of staff

Answer 45

Bellman v Northamptonshire Recruitment Ltd: employer was liable for a physical attack by a senior manager after a Christmas party (acknowledged to be an exceptional case) The party was paid for by the company, some employees went for drinks also paid for by the company, got into a row over an employee Director hit employee so hard Held to be in the course of employment because it was a row over company employees, in a party paid by the company

Answer 46

W M Morrison Supermarkets PLC v Various Claimants: D1 wrongly disclosed to newspapers files containing the personnel details of very large number of members of staff He was not only doing it for personal reasons rather than for assisting his employer, but was actively trying to damage his employer because he had a grudge following earlier disciplinary investigations Held not to be in the course of employment- actively intended to damage the company

Answer 47

Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd: film Rasputin, the Mad Monk, identified C, imputing unchastity Libel because the movie consisted of a series of negatives linked together, which could be shown on the screen for audiences at any time

Answer 48

Andre v Price: D made comments to a live studio audience on The Graham Norton Show about her estranged husband, suggesting he was a cheat and a liar (slander)

Answer 49

Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc: for serious harm (but PRE-statute), the game has to be worth the candle- proceedings could be struck out should they not serve the legitimate purpose of protecting C's reputation hyperlink was only clicked by 5 people, three of which were 'in C's camp'- could not pass the de minimis threshold

Answer 50

Mason v Satelcom Ltd: D knew that C would have to gain access to the high cabinet, but gave no instruction in health and safety, or in relation to the use of equipment or in working at heights, and never provided C with any stepladders for his work- breach. negligence proven

Answer 51

Hannington v Mitie Cleaning Ltd: negligence proven, skip had a design fault and ought to have been kept securely open- with it being a windy yard, risk of the accident occurring was obvious

Answer 52

Cross v UGC Ltd: duty to ensure a safe system of work was breached, there were haphazard practices arranged by D in keeping the floor in safe condition and the soles of C's work-boots free from slipper substances

Answer 53

Chell v Tarmac Cement: pellets, hearing loss; work didn't involve pellets so no VL and no specific obligation to guard against this

Cases Flashcards

(77 cards)