Key cases Flashcards
Donoghue v Stevenson
F - woman buys ginger beer. Dead snail in it. Claimed mental illness. Sued manufacturer. Successful
E - neighbour test + reasonable foreseeability duty of care
Bourhill v Young
F - man dies in motorcycle crash. Observer tried to claim damages. Unsuccessful.
E - introduced requirement of duty of care
Caparo v Dickman
F - negligent misstatement by a group of accountants
E - introduced tripartite test (foreseeable + proximate + fair, just and reasonable
Hughes v Lord Advocate
F - worker leaves a manhole uncovered without sufficient warning. Kids go down with gas lamp. Explosion. Claim for injuries.
E - was held to be reasonably foreseeable, example of tests
Muir v Glasgow Corporation
F - afternoon tea workers spilt tea and burned girl
E - only reasonable care must be taken, not duty to avoid all potential risk
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
F - Yorkshire ripper, last victim’s mother sued for police’s inefficient dealing with issue
E - police don’t owe duty of care to protect individuals from third parties. Do owe duty not to cause loss directly
Gibson v Orr
F - police arrive at broken bridge and leave without setting up warning measures. Man drives off.
E - liable, as they took control of situation initially and, therefore, directly caused incident through omissions
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
F - old lady injured by police during apprehension of suspect outside gambling shop
E - direct, as they decided where, when and how to apprehend. Liable for her injuries
Reavis v Clan Line Steamers
F - ship sank. Orchestra members died. Conductor tried to sue for financial loss of potential profit
E - unsuccessful, secondary victims cannot recover for pure economic loss
Hedley Byrne v Heller
F - negligent misstatement b auditor. Investors who lost when company went bankrupt sued.
E - successful, primary economic loss can be recovered
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
F - Hillsborough disaster, people who witnessed deaths tried to claim damages for resultant psychiatric illness
E - requirements of secondary victims for psychiatric illness: 1) time and physical proximity, 2) appropriate relationship and 3) shockingness
Robertson v Forth Road Joint Bridge Board
F - men watched friend fall to death over bridge
E - long-term friendship did not satisfy close tie of love and affection requirement for relationship
Smith v Stages
F - travelling during work hours
E - course of employment requirement is judged circumstantially
Williams v Hemphill
F - lorry driver took a long detour away from route of employment
E - as long as what you are doing has a sufficiently close connection to your employment, you are acting in the course of said employment
Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd
F - Managing director was involved in a fight on a Christmas night out
E - company was held to be vicariously liable, even though in an obviously non-professional circumstance. Very broad scope of VL
WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc v Various Claimants
F - company auditor released personal payroll information about thousands of employees in anger.
E - company not liable as: 1) was not pursuing company interests, 2) was a close connection to employment but this alone does not mean VL. Narrowed scope of VL
Barclays Bank Plc v Various Claimants
F - Self-employed doctor sexually assaulted 126 people, when hired by Barclays to conduct medical checks before employment. Victims claimed VL against bank.
E - held not to be VL, as was never an employee of company. Narrowed scope of relationship for VL
Watt v Jamieson
F - leaking water vapour from neighbouring flat caused damage
E - introduced reasonable tolerance test for nuisance + locality principle
Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate
F - Tate gallery attendees could see into opposite flats
E - Actionable, despite rule that only property interference allows for
Shell UK v McGillivray
F - striking contractors occupied vessel that they were supposed to be doing work on
E - law broadened to include both heritable and moveable property in reference to trespass
Allan v Flood
F - dispute between iron workers and woodworkers in a ship yard
E - intentionally causing economic loss is only unlawful if using unlawful means
DC Thompson v Deacon
F - trade union members told to strike. Amounted to breach of contract. Was trade union leader liable for economic loss of company?
E - yes, inducing intentional economic loss is also unlawful
Smolden v Whitworth
F - rugby scrum collapsed, causing severe neck injury to players. Sued rugby board.
E - referee was actually liable for poor adjudication of the game. Consent to activities is not limitless defence.
Weir v Wyper
F - unlicensed driver got into an accident with friends in the car
E - act was significantly criminal for illegality test, meaning surviving passengers in the accident could recover for damages
