cases

Question 1

kent v Griffiths

Answer 1

damage must be reasonably foreseeable

Question 2

bourhill v young

Answer 2

no proximity

Question 3

mcloughlin v o Brian

Answer 3

there was proximity

Question 4

hill v cc of West Yorkshire

Answer 4

it must be fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care

Question 5

Blyth v Birmingham water works

Answer 5

omitting to do something a reasonable person would do or doing something a reasonable person wouldn’t do

Question 6

bolam v friend hospital management committee

Answer 6

a professional will be judged by the standard of a reasonable person in that profession

Question 7

mullin v richard

Answer 7

a child will be judged at the standard of a reasonable child

Question 8

bolton v stone

Answer 8

the greater the degree of risk involved the greater the level of care required

Question 9

Latimer v aec

Answer 9

cost of precautions

Question 10

Paris v Stepney borough

Answer 10

potential seriousness of injury

Question 11

watt vs Hertfordshire county council

Answer 11

social importance of the activity

Question 12

barnett v Chelsea hospital

Answer 12

damage must be caused by the breach

Question 13

the wagon mound

Answer 13

not too remote from the breach, of a foreseeable type

Question 14

hughes v lord advocate

Answer 14

it is not necessary to foresee the precise chain of events leading to the breach

Question 15

smith v leech brain

Answer 15

nor is it necessary to foresee the extent of the damage

Question 16

Hedley byrne

Answer 16

a negligent misstatement may give rise to an action for damages for economic loss

Question 17

chaudry v Prabhakar

Answer 17

as c believed d was knowledgeable about cars there was reliance

Question 18

Caparo v dickman

Answer 18

d had no knowledge of cs existence let alone reliance

Question 19

smith v bush

Answer 19

statements made in a professional context may give rise to an action for damages under economic loss

Question 20

Behrens

Answer 20

claimants can claim for psychiatric injury if it is foreseeable and caused by the ds negligence

Question 21

mcfarlanne

Answer 21

claimant must show a recognised psychiatric injury resulting from shock

Question 22

hinz v berry

Answer 22

worry panic fear terror will not amount to psychiatric injury

Question 23

mcloughlin v o Brian

Answer 23

psychiatric injury can be caused by witnessing a traumatic event involving a close family member

Question 24

hicks v cc of South Yorkshire

Answer 24

psychiatric injury must be foreseeable

Question 25

giles v walker

Answer 25

there is no liability for something that naturally accumulates on the land

Question 26

shiffman

Answer 26

this amounted to an escape

Question 27

read v Lyons

Answer 27

there was no escape

Question 28

eastern counties leather

Answer 28

the escape must be reasonably foreseeable and preventable for an action in drylands and fletcher to succeed

Question 29

transco v stockport mbc

Answer 29

although the use of land was non natural, it was not unusual or exraordinary either

Question 30

perky v Hendricks transport ltd

Answer 30

third party

Question 31

corsairs v Taylor

Answer 31

heavy rain was classed as an act of god

Question 32

malone v laskey

Answer 32

in order to bring a claim in nuisance a c must prove that have an interest in the land they claim their use or enjoyment has been interfered with

Question 33

London borough of southwark vs mills

Answer 33

a claim for nuisance must prove that the interference was substantial and unreasonable

Question 34

miller v Jackson

Answer 34

cricket

Question 35

coventry vs Lawrence

Answer 35

the courts upheld that private nuisance can exist in situations where the act is unreasonable even if it is permitted by the local council

Question 36

Goldman vs Hargrave

Answer 36

a d may still be liable for damages caused by natural occurrences if they fail to take reasonable steps

Question 37

st helens smelting co vs tipping

Answer 37

where there is physical damage to property the locality principle is irrelevant

Question 38

Sturges v Bridgman

Answer 38

whether or not the nuisance was established before the claimant moved in is irrelevant

Question 39

bliss v hall

Answer 39

definition (private nuisance