Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Tort - Negligence > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

(68 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Established a duty of care between teacher and child

A

Carmathenshire CC v Lewis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Established a duty of care between doctor and patient

A

Pippin v Sheppard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Established a duty of care owed by road users

A

Nettleship v Weston

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Established a duty of care between transport operator and user

A

Silverlink trains v Collins

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Caparo - Foreseeability

A

Hayley v London Electricity board

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Caparo - Proximity between C and D

A

Donoghue v Stevenson
OR
Geary v JD Wetherspoons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Caparo - fair, just and reasonable

A

XA v YA
OR
Hill v West Yorkshire Police

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Omissions - did C exercise control over D

A

Reeves v West Yorkshire Police
Clarified in Orange v CC of Northumbria
Confirmed in Keenan v ECHR

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Omissions - D assumed responsibility

A

Costello v CC of Northumbria

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Omissions - D adopted the risk of danger

A

Goldman v Hargrave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Actions of 3rd party - D and C have a relationship

A

Stansbie v Truman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Actions of 3rd party - D and 3rd party have a relationship

A

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Actions of 3rd party - 3rd party sparked danger

A

Haynes v Harwood

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Actions of 3rd party - D didn’t prevent the known danger caused by C

A

Clark fixing v Dudley

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Psychiatric harm - primary victim

A

Defined in Alcock: “directly involved in the accident, and well within the range of foreseeable physical injury”

Narrowed in Page v Smith ‘danger zone’ i.e. those within a range of foreseeable danger

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Psychiatric harm - example of foreseeability in Page v Smith

A

Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating LTD

NB: also said this type of claim should be restricted to accidents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Psychiatric harm - when can C recover for psychiatric injury? (not a case)

A

C can recover for psychiatric injury if they have suffered physical injury or risk of physical injury caused by D’s negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Psychiatric harm - secondary victims test

A

Bouhill v Young - ‘foreseeable in a person of ordinary fortitude’
Alcock mechanisms - 1) relationship 2) proximity 3) shock

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Psychiatric harm - relationship

A

Roberston v Forth Bridge Guard

NB: Judge gave petrol tanker and school example

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Psychiatric harm - proximity

A

Berisha v Stone Superstores - 5 hours didn’t satisfy
McLoughlin v O’Brian - 2 hours satisfied proximity
Galli-Atkinson v Seghal - proximity satisfied a few hours after accident and arriving at morgue (generous)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Psychiatric harm - proximity in relation to the accident, not the consequence

A

Taylor v Anovo

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Psychiatric harm - shock

A

Soin v Hampstead Hospital - child died over 14 days.

‘sudden appreciation by sight or sound of a horrifying event which violently agitates the mind’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Economic loss - distinction between consequential and pure economic loss

A

Spartan Steel v Martin Co

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Economic loss - when can C claim for pure economic loss

A

Hedley Byrne

1) fiduciary relationship
2) voluntarily assumes responsibility
3) reasonable reliance
4) expert/special knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Economic loss - Hedley Byrne - voluntarily assumes responsibility
In Hedley Byrne disclaimer meant they didn't voluntarily assume responsibility
26
Economic loss - Hedley Byrne - reasonable reliance
Smith v Bush
27
Economic loss - Hedley Byrne - expert knowledge
Professions e.g. solicitors, surveyors | Social context if D claims to have knowledge - Chaudray v Prabhakar
28
Economic loss - Extensions of Hedley Byrne
White v Jones = wills | Spring v Guardian Assurance = job references
29
Liability of Public Bodies - fire service
Capital and Counties v Hampshire CC
30
Liability of Public Bodies - ambulance
Kent v Griffith
31
Liability of Public Bodies - police - operational negligence
Rigby v CC of Northamptonshire
32
Liability of Public Bodies - police - policy decisions
Robinson v CC of West Yorkshire
33
Liability of Public Bodies - police - do not owe a duty to individuals
Smith v CC of Sussex | Hill v CC of West Yorkshire
34
Breach of duty - foreseeability
Wagon Mound
35
Breach of duty
Donoghue v Stevenson: “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour” This is an objective standard of reasonableness
36
Breach of duty - general standard of care
Nettleship v Weston - ' an objective standard is applied, a learner driver is compared to a skilled, professional driver'
37
Breach of duty - DIY enthusiast
Wells v Cooper
38
Breach of duty - held to someone of the same profession
Philips v Whiteley - piercer not surgeon
39
Breach of duty - skill doesn't mean lesser standard of care
Condon v Basi
40
Breach of duty - child will be compared to a reasonable child
Richard v Mullins
41
Breach of duty - reasonable person in an emergency
James v Boyce
42
Breach of duty - general standard of care
Nettleship v Weston - ' an objective standard is applied, a learner driver is compared to a skilled, professional driver'
43
Breach of duty - DIY enthusiast
Wells v Cooper
44
Breach of duty - held to someone of the same profession
Philips v Whiteley - piercer not surgeon
45
Breach of duty - skill doesn't mean lesser standard of care
Condon v Basi
46
Breach of duty - child will be compared to a reasonable child
Richard v Mullins
47
Breach of duty - reasonable person in an emergency
James v Boyce
48
Breach of duty - professional standard of care
Bolam v Friern Hospital - 'Did D act with the skill and competence that was expected by someone within that field'
49
Breach of duty - what amended Bolam
Bolitho v Hackney HA - actions must have a reasonable and logical basis
50
Breach of duty - junior doctors same standard as professional doctors
Wilsher v Essex HA
51
Breach of duty - when does Bolam not apply
Montgomery v Lancashire HB - if there has been a disclosure of risks
52
Causation - exceptions to but for test and cases:
Multiple causes of harm - Wilsher v Essex HA Negligence was a material contribution - Bonnington v Wardlaw Negligence increased the risk - McGhee v National Coal Board Failure to inform - Chester v Ashfar Multiple D's cause the negligence - Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Service NB: methods to encourage employers to be more safe
53
Causation - remoteness
Wagon Mound 'reasonable person must be able to see the negligence was the 'real' and not 'far fetched' cause of injury'
54
Breach of duty - Did D fall below the standard of care? - Social utility
Watt v Hertfordshire CC
55
Breach of duty - Did D fall below the standard of care? - Cost of reducing injury
Paris v Stepney CC OR Laterimer v AEC
56
Breach of duty - res ipsa loquitor
Scott v London and St Katherine Docks
57
Causation - but for test
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management
58
Causation - exceptions to but for test and cases:
Multiple causes of harm - Wilsher v Essex HA Negligence was a material contribution - Bonnington v Wardlaw Negligence increased the risk - McGhee v National Coal Board Failure to inform - Chester v Ashfar Multiple D's cause the negligence - Fairchail v Glenhaven Funeral Service
59
Causation - remoteness
Wagon Mound 'reasonable person must be able to see the negligence was the 'real' and not 'far fetched' cause of injury'
60
Causation - remoteness
Hughes v Lord Advocate - not too remote because expected injury is burns NB: shows courts leniency towards children and trying to encourage employers to be more safe
61
Causation - thin skull rule
Smith v Leech Brain Co
62
Causation - novus actus interveniens
Weld-Blundell v Stephens - crimes break the chain of causation (Note: this contradicts Baker. However, courts worried in Baker because robbers were never court there would be a gap in damages) Rouse v Squires
63
Causation - acts of C's
Mckew - Holland
64
Causation - naturally occurring acts
Carlsogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government
65
Defences - consent
Condon v Basi | Morris v Murray
66
Defences - illegality
Grays OR Pitts v Hunt
67
Defences - contributory negligence
Jackson v Murray | Jones v Livoux
68
Grief, anxiety, stress will not suffice for psychiatric injury
Hicks v CC for South Yorkshire

Tort - Negligence (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions