Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law Paper 2&3 > Paper 2- Tort > Flashcards

Paper 2- Tort Flashcards

1
Q

Occupier liability 1957:
Occupier case- Harris v Birkenhead corp 1976

A

Facts: the council failed to board up a up a house and as a result a 4 year old entered and fell though the second floor window.
Held: council were liable.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Occupier case- Wheat v Lacon 1966

A

Facts: D owed a pub, manager lived on the first floor not as a tenant. A guest was killed on an emergency staircase tying to get to the pub in the 1st floor.
Held: manager and owners were occupiers.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Occupiers case- Bailey v Armes 1999

A

Facts: D lived in a flat above a supermarket. They told their son not to go into the flat roof with someone else. The 8year old friend joined the son in the roof and was injured.
Held: not liable as there was no occupier.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Premises- Revill v Newberry 1996

A

Facts: claimant sneaked into D land with the intention to steal. D shot a shotgun to the movement outside and hit the claimant.
Held: not liable as the case wasn’t related to the premises.

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

Occupiers Liability 1957:
Implied permission- Lowery v Walker 1911

A

Facts: People often walk though the D land to get to the railway station. He put a wild horse on the land which attacked and injured the claimant.
Held: implied permission.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Duty to visitor- Horton v Jackson 1996

A

Facts: C lost sight in one eye due to being hit my the D golf ball. D argued it was the clubs fault for not placing screens.
Held: neither were liable because it would have happened anyway with or without a screen.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Duty to a visitor- Darby v National Trust 2001

A

Facts: a man drowned while swimming in a Anatolian trust pond, his widow claimed there should have been a warning.
Held:not liable as drowning was a obvious risk

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Children- Perry v Butlins 1997

A

Facts: 3 year old cut his ear on a brick wall which was low, had sharp bricks, and near an open shown for kids.
Held: the design of the wall combined with its position meant that they were liable.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Children- Jolley v LB of Sutton 2000

A

Facts: 14 year old was paralyzed when repairing an old boat on a council estate.
Held: liable as the precise nature of what the child did was not the issue.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Children- Glasgow Corp v Taylor 1922

A

Facts: 7 year old does from eating poisonous berries picked from a bush in a park under the control of corporation who were away of poisonous berries.
Held: liable as berries were an allurement.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Children- Phipps v Rochester Corp 1955

A

Facts: 5 year old picked blackberries with his 7 year old sister. They crossed an open field and fell into a deep trench that would easily be recognizable by an adult and broke his leg.
Held: not liable because a sensible parent wouldn’t let that happen.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Allurement- Cooke v Midland Great Western 1909

A

Facts: a young child was injured playing on a railway turntable which he was aware children could get to and play on but took no precautions.
Held: liable as it counted to implied permission

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Allurement- Edwards v Railway Executive 1952

A

Facts: 9 year old boy got injured by a train after chasing a ball. The D knew about the children broke through but always repaired it as soon as possible.
Held: not liable as no implied permission

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Right of way- Gautret v Egertin 1867 confirmed in MacGeowen v N Ire Housing Exec 1994

A

Facts: appellant was walking accords a public footpath which ran over D land and was injured.
Held: not liable

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Person exercising a calling- Roles v Nathan 1963

A

Facts: 2 chimney workers were killed while working on a chimney which was lit at the time.
Held: not liable as the sweepers were away and warned of the risk but carried in anyway.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Person exercising a calling- Ogwo v Taylor 1988

A

Facts: D negligently set fire to a house. The firefighter got injured trying to stop it.
Held: liable

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Independent contractor- Haseldine v Daw 1941

A

Facts: Claimant was killed when a left plunged to the bottom. D had apparently competent firm to maintain the lift.
Held: not liable as the nature of the work meant they couldn’t Thor check whether it had been done properly.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Independent contractor- Woodward v Major of Hastings 1945

A

Facts: claimant ( a child) slipped at school on a step covered in snow that had negligently been cleaned.
Held:occupier’s were liable and should have taken the reasonable steps to check the work was properly done.

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

Occupiers liability 1957:
Defenses - Roles v Nathan 1963

A

•Lord Denning
•of a house has a river in front and the sole meaning is to access over the bridge the occupier will not secure a defense by securing a warning to the bridge. If there is two bridges the occupier must show a warning to use the safe bridge.

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

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Occupier cases-

A

•Harris v Birkenhead corp 1976
• Wheat v Lacon 1966

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

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Premises cases-

A

•Revill v Newberry 1996

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

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Trespasser- White v St Albans city 1990

A

Facts: C took a short cut through the councils land to the car park and fell down a 12ft trench and got injured. The land was clearly private and the council didn’t know C was on the land.
Held: C was a trespasser.

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

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Occupiers duty to a trespasser- Swain v National Ram Puri 1996

A

Facts: 9year old boy got injured when falling from D factory roof.
Held: reasonable grounds to believe meant that it was necessary to show actual knowledge. So not liable.

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

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Occupiers duty to trespasser- Scott v Assoc British Ports 1999

A

Facts: 2 boys lost limbs while trying to get on to moving trains and play in D land. (Two incidents 4 years apart).
Held: because of the 1st incident they owed a duty for the 2nd one. Although due to C age they were not liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Common duty of humanity- BRB v Herrington 1972

A

Facts: 6year old passed though a gap in a fence and got electrocuted on the D railway land. The station was aware the fence needed repairing.
Held: in breach of duty and they failed to show a common duty of humanity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Common duty of humanity- Platt v Liverpool city council 1997

A

Facts: group of boys entered a derelict buildings owned by the council which collapsed. One boy dies and the another injured.
Held: Council has acted reasonably to prevent injury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Common duty of humanity- Ratliff v McConnell 1998

A

Facts: C who had been drinking decided to go swimming in the college pool which was closed. The gate was locked and there were warnings of low depth. He dived in the shallow end and got paralysed.
Held: not liable and the risk was obvious.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Defences: contributory negligence case-

A

Revill v Newberry 1996

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Occupiers liability Act 1984:
Defences: volenti- Titchener v BRB 1983

A

•Adult claimants are regarded as accepting any risk which they know about when entering the land.
•this suggests occupiers can use this defense more against trespassers.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Private Nuisance:
Who can be sued: creator- Thomas v NUM 1985

A

Facts: Striking miners picketing in the middle of the road were a nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can be sued: occupiers- Maranda v National Provincial 1936

A

Facts: claimants flat affected by building work in flat above my contractors.
Held: nuisance as damage inevitable without precautions being taken.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can be sued: occupier- Sadleigh-Denfield v O Callaghan 1940

A

Facts: A drainage pipe had been wrongly placed and caused flooding to claimants. D wasn’t aware of the danger when the pipe was placed but they were aware by the time damage occurred.
Held: it was for the D to remove the danger.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can be sued: owners- Wringe v Cohen 1940

A

Facts: an adjoining wall collapsed because of lack of repair

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can be sued- Tetley v Chitty 1986

A

Facts: council leased land to go to a go- kart club, noise complained of.
Held: noise was necessary in go-karting. A landlord could be liable if they knew about the nuisance and failed to take sufficient steps to prevent it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can be sued- Lippiatt v South Gloucestershire 1999

A

Facts: council allowed traveler to stay on their land. Claimants were neighboring farmers who complained that they had entered their land and caused damage.
Held: authorized by the council.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can be sued- Husain v Lancaster CC 1999

A

Facts: claimants owned a shop on a council estate. Abused by tenants, council had power of eviction but did not use it.
Held: no nuisance as did not affect tenants’ use of land. Here the land was incidental but in Lippiatt the land was sued as a launchpad.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can sue- Hunter v Canary Wharf 1995

A

•only those who have an interest in land can sue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can sue- Pemberton v Southwark 2000

A

Facts: claimant was a tolerated trespasser as a council tenant who had fallen behind with rent. Cockroaches started to come from through the vents.
Held: under Hunter, claimant had sufficient interest as exclusive occupant.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Private Nuisance:
Can sue- Delaware v Westminster 1999

A

Facts: flat damaged by roots of a tree on a council land. The damage had started before the tenants gained an interest in their flat.
Held: the nuisance was a continuing state of affairs and while it lasted so did the right to sue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference- Davey v Harrow 1958

A

•the roots of a neighbours tree speeding into the claimants land.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference- Sedleigh- Denfield v O’Callanger

A

•water flooding onto land though an act of a neighbour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference- Christie v Davey 1893

A

•noise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference- Wheeler v Saunders 1995

A

•smells

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference: natural arising hazard- Leakey v National Trust 1980

A

Facts: D land contained a large mound. They were aware that landslides could occur but did nothing. A landslide occurred pushing debris into the C land.
Held: private nuisance even though the D had nothing to cause it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference: natural hazard- Holbeck v Scarborough 2000

A

Facts: land slip in D land caused the C hotel to collapse. Council were aware of the possibility but had done nothing.
Held: D should have at least informed the claimants of the possibility. However, D not liable as it was too expensive to survey to foresee the damage.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference- Thompson-Schwab v Costaki 1956

A

Facts: Running a brothel in a respectable area was a nuisance
Held: Nuisance does not cover recreational activities as things of delight. E.g., blocking a pleasant view.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Private Nuisance:
Interference- Hunter v Canary Wharf 1997

A

Facts: alleged that CW was affecting D tv reception.
Held: no liability.
•interference can also interfere with rights to land known as servitude. E.g., right of way, right to light.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Private Nuisance:
Unreasonableness- Southwark v Mills 1999

A

Facts: council had converted house into flats. C occupied one of the flats and was complaining about the lack of soundproofing.
Held: not nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Private Nuisance:
Unreasonableness: sensitivity- Robinson v Kilvert 1889

A

Facts: in a building downstairs was a box makers and upstairs was paper storage. The heat from the box makers ruined the paper.
Held: overly sensitive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Private Nuisance:
Unreasonableness: unusual sensitivity- McKinnon v Walker 1951

A

Facts: fumes damaged orchids which were difficult to grow.
Held: could claim.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Private Nuisance:
Unreasonableness: locality- St Helen’s v Tipping 1865

A

Facts: fumes from a copper works affected the claimants estate which was situated in a n industrial area.
Held: claimants should be able to put with a level of discomfort common in an area but not actual damage to land thus claimants gained an injunction.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Private Nuisance:
Unreasonableness: locality- Sturges v Bridgman 1879

A

Facts: a Dr sued a confectioner for noise caused by industrial equipment.
Held: as area mainly occupied by Drs surgeries, nuisance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Private Nuisance:
Unreasonableness: locality- Murdoch v Glacier 1998

A

Facts: claimant complained that noise from a factory was stopping her sleeping.
Held: no nuisance as an industrial area with a range of noises

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Private Nuisance:
unreasonableness: planning permission- Gillingham v Medway 1993

A

Facts: D got planning permission to operate a commercial dock causing more traffic to run at night.
Held: permission turned area from residential to industrial and so no nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Private Nuisance:
unreasonableness: planning permission not immunity- Wheeler v Saunders

A

Facts: planning permission given to Ds to build 2 pig pens close to claimant causing smells to drift
Held: the planning permission had not made the interference reasonable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Private Nuisance:
unreasonableness: duration- Crown River v Kimbolton 1996

A

Facts: a 29 minute firework display was a nuisance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Private Nuisance:
unreasonableness: malice- Christie v Davey 1983

A

Facts: claimant held musical parties so defendant blew whistles, banged trays, shrieked and hammered in the wall
Held: for claimant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Private Nuisance:
unreasonableness: malice- Hollywood Silver Fox v Emmett 1936

A

Facts: foxes were frightened by gunshots and so ate young
Held: for claimants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Private Nuisance:
unreasonableness: damage - Cambridge v Eastern Counties 1994

A

As the D has allowed the case to go to court they must be refusing to stop the activity and if it is a nuisance then it must stop.
However, where damages are being sought fault is required

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Private Nuisance:
Damages: statutory authority- Allen v Gulf Oil 1981

A

Facts: act gave D power to build refinery but did not defer to its operation
Held: implied in the act that this should be done

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

Private Nuisance:
Damages: prescription/ long user- Sturges v Bridgman 1879

A

Although, operative for over 20 years not a nuisance all that time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

Private Nuisance:
Damages: prescription/ long user- Tate Modern

A

the viewing platform allowed Tate Modern visitors to cause a nuisance to the adjacent flat owners.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

Negligence: Duty of Care- Donoghue v Stevenson 1932

A

Facts: women brought a bottle of ginger beer for her friend, the C found a part of a decomposed snail at the bottom of the bottle.
Held: not taking duty of care. So C was able to sue for negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

Negligence: Duty of Care- Anns v Merton 1978

A

Stated by Lord Wilberforce: reasonable foresight if the particular damage in question (regardless of what form that damage might take) would give rise to a duty of care.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

Negligence: Duty of Care- Yuen Kun Yeu c AG of Hong King 1987

A

Stated by Lord Keith: Duty of care requires sufficient relationship of proximity between parties which did not necessarily exist simply because damage was reasonably foreseeable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

Negligence: Duty of Care- Caparo v Dickman

A

a) reasonably foreseeability
b) proximity
c) just and reasonable to impose a duty

67
Q

Negligence: Duty of Care: just and reasonable to impose a duty- Hill v Ch Con of West Yorkshire 1988

A

Held: the police owe no duty of care to an individual member of the public with respect to their function in the investigation and suppression of crime, on the ground that to hold otherwise would divert valuable resources from the performance of that function and would not promote the observance of a higher standard of care.

68
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks 1856

A

Concluded: the standard of care is based on the reasonable man, an honest objective test

69
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty- Roe v Minister of Health 1954

A

Facts: a doctor injected a patient with a needle that had become infected through microscopic holes.
Held: no breach of care because at the time, this was not foreseeable. The doctor had not exposed the patient to an unreasonable risk of harm.

70
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty: the magnitude of the risk- Bolton v Stone 1951

A

Facts: the C was standing int he Road when she was struck by a cricket ball hit out of the D ground. This had happened 6 times in the last 30years
Held: not liable, risk so mall that they were justified in not taking further action

71
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty: the magnitude of the risk- Paris v Stepney BC 1951

A

Facts: a one eyed garage worker was not supplied with saftey goggles. He was blinded while at work.
Held: liable even thought there was no requirement to provide goggles for all employees because the injury to the claimant was so high.

72
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty: social desirability- Watts v Hertfordshire CC 1954

A

Facts: a fireman was I judged by the movement of a heavy jack whilst travelling in a lorry which was not properly equipped to carry it. The lack was urgently needed to save the life of a women who had become trapped under a bus.
Held: D were justified in exposing the C to that risk.

73
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty: social desirability- Ward v LCC 1938

A

Held: a fire authority was held to be negligent where a fire engine passed though a red traffic signal on its way to a fire and caused a collission.

74
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty: cost of precautions- Latimer v AEC ltd 1953

A

Facts: a factory floor became slippery with oil and water after a heavy rainfall caused flooding despite taking such steps as they were able, the D couldn’t entirely eradicate the danger and the C slipped and was injured.
Held: the D were held hit libel because the risk was not so great as to require the drastic step of closing the factory until the floor dried out.

75
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty- Gough v Thome

A

Facts: a child was hit by a car
Held: have to meet the standard of a reasonable child of your age

76
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty- Nettleship v Weston

A

Facts: learner driver hit another car
Held: had to meet the standard of a reasonable trained professional.

77
Q

Negligence: Breach of duty: professionals- Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital 1957

A
78
Q

Negligence: causation of damage- Barnett v Chelsea &Kensington Hospital 1969

A

Facts: a casualty officer failed to examine a patient, who later died of arsenic poisoning.
Held: the patient would have died anyway, thus not liable.

79
Q

Negligence: causation of damage- McGhee v National Coal Board 1972

A

Facts: the C contracted dermatitis as a result of exposure to abrasive dust at work. The NCB had not supplied any washing facilities so that he had been caked in dust as he cycled home.
Held: D were liable because they had materially increased the risk of injury even though medical knowledge was unable to establish the breach as the probable cause.

80
Q

Negligence: causation of damage- Baker v Willoughby 1979

A

Facts: C keg was injured though D actions and some time later before the trial was in action he was shot during a robbery on the same leg which then had to be amputated
Held: C right of recovery was not limited to the loss only before the robbery, but was entitled to the damages in relation to the amputation

81
Q

Negligence: causation of damage- Jobling v Associated Daries 1980

A

Facts: C was suffering from a complaint, wholly unrelated to the original accident, which totally incapacitated him.
Held: D only liable for the initial loss.

82
Q

Negligence: Remoteness- the wagon Mound 1961

A

Facts: the D negligently discharged into Sydney Harbour a large quantity of fuel oil which drifted to the C wharf where welding was in process. C discontinued their operations but got reassurance oil was not danger to igniting. A fire broke out damaging the wharf and 2 ships
Held: it was unforeseen that the oil would ignite and thus D were not liable.

83
Q

Negligence: Remoteness: manner of occurance- Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963

A

Facts: a man hole was a left uncovered with a canvas shelter over it, surrounded by paraffin lamps. The C (8year old boy) took one of the lamps into the shelter and knocked it into the manhole. There was a violent explosion causing serious burns.
Held: even thought the explosion was not foreseeable the burns from the lamp were so D were liable.

84
Q

Negligence: Remoteness: type of damage- Bradford v Robinson Rentals 1967

A

Facts: a van driver was sent in a long journey in an unheated vehicle in severe weather, he suffered frostbite
Held: although not specifically foreseeable, frostbite was in a broad class of foreseeable risk so he could recover.

85
Q

Negligence: Remoteness: extent of damage- Vacwell v BDH 1971

A

Facts: D supplied the C with a chemical but did not tell them that it was explosive
Held: even though the degree of damage was not foreseeable they could recover

86
Q

Negligence: Remoteness: intervening causes- McKew v Holland 1969

A

Facts: C leg could give way at any time due to the D negligence. He descended a flight of steps without help causing a fracturing of the ankle
Held: although further injury was foreseeable, the c actions were so unreasonable as to be novus actus

87
Q

Negligence: Remoteness- Knightley v Johns 1982

A

Facts: D was a driver who negligently caused a crash on the bend of a one way tunnel. The police officer in charge failed to close the tunnel before asking a police motorcyclist to ride against the traffic. Motorcyclist was killed
Held: test was whether the 3rd party actions break the chain is if it was a natural and probable cause of the D act. Therefore the claim failed

88
Q

Negligence: Remoteness- Carslogie v Royal Norwegian 1952

A

Facts: storm damage was suffered to ship in a voyage for repairs required because of the D negligence
Held: not liable

89
Q

Negligence: Remoteness: children- Shirley v Codd 1967

A

A boy of 16 was negligent in the use of an air rifle

90
Q

Negligence: Remoteness: children - McHale v Watson 1966

A

A young child dies cause injury by conduct which is an adult would be classed as negligence then often a parent or teacher will be liable

91
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: Rylands v fletcher 1868

A

Facts: a mill owner paid contractors to construct a reservoir in his land. The reservoir joined mine shafts situated on neighbouring land and these were not blocked by the contractors. As a result when the reservoir was filled, the mine was flooded. The D could not have known about the shafts.

92
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: who can sue?- Smith v Scott 1973

A

Facts: a local authority let a house to a homeless family, in condition that they promised not to make trouble. They did not keep their promise and so their neighbour tried to sue the L.A
Held: didn’t apply to the landlord of premises, as the tenants were in control

93
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: non natural use- Rickards v Lothian 1913

A

Facts: D leased upper per of building for manufacturing. A known person turned a tap on flooding downstairs.
Held: factory use was natural. D was making ordinary and proper use of the building.

94
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: non natural use- Giles v Walker 1890

A

Facts: the D ploughed up forest land causing thistles to grow. The resulting seeds blew onto neighbouring land
Held: not liable as thistles grew naturally

95
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: non natural- Crowhurst v Amersham Burial Board 1878

A

Facts: the D planted a yew tree, ranches protruded over into neighbours land. Cattle ate the leaves and died as a result
Held: on the facts planting a yew tree was not a natural use of land.

96
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: dangerous- Batchellor v Tunbridge 1901

A

Case over gas

97
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: dangerous- Nat telephone v Baker 1893

A

Case over electricity

98
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: dangerous- West v Bristol 1908

A

Case over poisonous fumes

99
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: dangerous- Shiffman v St John 1936

A

Case of flag poles

100
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: escape- Read v Lyons 1946

A

Facts: an inspector at a munitions factory was injured when a shell exploded
Held: no escape as this only occurs when something escapes to outside a place where the D has occupation and control

101
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: escape- Weller v Foot &Mouth Disease Research 1966

A

Facts: the virus escaped from the D premises causing movement of cattle to be stopped locally. The c were auctioneers
Held: no claim as the c had no interest in the land the virus escaped to

102
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: contributory negligence- Eastern &South Africa Telegraph v Cape Town 1902

A

A very small escape of electricity did not cause liability when they damaged power sensitive cables.

103
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: statutory authority - Green v Chelsea Waterworks 1894

A

Facts: a water main laid by the D flooded the c land
Held: the co was not liable because the statute required them to maintain a water supply and occasional bursts were inevitable.

104
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: defences- Charing Cross v Hydraulic 1914

A

Facts: as green
Held: liable as the statute did not oblige the co to keep water supply it only gave them the power to do so

105
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: act of a stranger- Box v Jubb. 1879

A

Facts: D reservoir overflowed after 3rd party had emptied his own reservoir into it
Held: no liability

106
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: act of god- Nichols v Marsland 1876

A

Facts: D dammed a natural stream in his land in order to create 3 artificial lakes. It was well built but thunderstorm burst the banks
Held: act if god

107
Q

Rylands v Fletcher: act of god- Greenock Corp v Caledonian Railway 1917

A

Facts: as Nicholas
Held: D liable.

108
Q

Vicarious liability: control test for employer and employee- Baylor v Manchester Railway 1873

A

Facts: a railway porter physically removed a passenger from a train mistakenly thinking he was in the wrong one
Held: liable

109
Q

Vicarious liability: ready mixed concrete test- Ready mixed concrete v Minister of pensioners 1968

A

1) employee agrees to provide work and skill for employer in return for payment
2) employee agrees to be subject to the employees control expressly or by implication
3) the other terms that r the contract are consistent with the existence of a contract of service

110
Q

Vicarious liability: ready mixed concrete test- Ferguson v Dawson 1976

A

Facts: a building labourer was an employees on the basis of work done and the degree of control exercised despite a specific contractual term
•increasing used it whether a worker is ‘in business in his own account’

111
Q

Vicarious liability: ready mixed concrete test- Hall v Lorimer 1992

A

Facts: was the D a freelance TV technician an employee, when he was under the control of the TV company in that they told him where, when and for how long to work
Held: he was not in business in his own account in that he did not provide equipment, take financial risks, hire helpers, have managerial and investment responsibilities L, charge varying amounts for different jobs, send out invoices and have clients.

112
Q

Vicarious liability: Uber test- Cox v Ministry of Justice 2016

A

Facts: the C managed the the prison kitchen with 4 other members of staff and around 20 prisoners. During a negligent incident, a prisoner dropped a bag of rice on the C back causing injury. The C sought an action against the Ministry of Justice upon the basis that they were vicariously liable for the acts of the prisoner.

113
Q

Vicarious liability: loan of an employee- Mersey Docks v Coggins 1947

A

Facts: the C hired out an employee and a crane to the D with the result that through the crane drivers negligence, someone was injured. The terms of the contract made the driver an employee of coggins but the harbour board paid his wages and retained the power to sack him
Held: C were the employers based on 3 principles

114
Q

Vicarious liability: close connection- Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd

A

The case for Lord Clyde 3 principles

115
Q

Vicarious liability: close connection- Catholic Child Welfare society v Various claimants and institute of the Brothers of the Christian schools 2012

A

Case for policy objectives

116
Q

Vicarious liability: close connection- Gravil v Carroll 2008

A

Held: and employer is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees committed in the course of their employments. Where the wrongful conduct could fairly and properly be regarded as done while acting in the course of employment . The was a close connection between the punch and C employment. Therefore D was liable

117
Q

Vicarious liability: close connection- Vance v Bough 2008

A

Held: the claim failed

118
Q

Vicarious liability: close connection- Lloyd v Grace 1912

A

Held: the employees were vicariously liable as a result of their lack of supervision.

119
Q

Vicarious liability: course of employment-Century v Northern Ireland Transport 1942

A

Facts: D employee was unloading petroleum at a station when he lit a cigarette and dropped the match into the ground causing an explosion
Held: liable

120
Q

Vicarious liability: course of employment- Bayler v Manchester Railway 1873

A

Facts: a railway porter physically removed a passenger from a train mistakenly thinking he was in the wrong one
Held: liable

121
Q

Vicarious liability: course of employment- Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning 1987

A

Facts: employee employed to clean phones used them for long distance phone calls
Held: not liable (but would be today)

122
Q

Vicarious liability: course of employment- Hilton v Burton 1961

A

Facts: 4 workmen were allowed to use a works van to get to work. One day they decided to use it to go to a cafe 7 miles away and in their return they were involved in an accident because of negligently driving
Held: not liable

123
Q

Vicarious liability: course of employment- Whatman v Pearson 1868

A

Facts: employee forbidden to go home for lunch, did so regardless leaving behind his horse and cart. The horse escaped damaging property
Held: liable

124
Q

Vicarious liability: course of employment- Storey v Ashton 1869

A

Facts: employees delivering wine, in their way back detoured to see relative and were then involved in accident though negligence. This took place after work hours
Held: not liable

125
Q

Vicarious liability: express prohibitiation- Limpus v London General 1862

A

Facts: bus driver raced another bus causing an accident despite specific instructions not to do so
Held: liable

126
Q

Vicarious liability: express prohibitiation- Twine v Bean 1946

A

Facts: D employee gave a lift to the claimants husband. He killed in an accident. The employee had given a precise list of who he could give lifts to and a copy was in the van itself. The victim was not on the list
Held: not liable

127
Q

Vicarious liability: express prohibitiation- Rose v Plenty 1976

A

Facts: D was employee of a milkman. He had been told not to employ children to help and not to let them ride in the float. A 13year old helper was injured
Held: liable

128
Q

Vicarious liability:criminal act: assault- Warren v Henley 1948

A

Facts: D employed a worker at their petrol station who accused a customer of intending to steal petrol. The customer threatened to report him so he punched the customer
Held: not liable

129
Q

Vicarious liability:criminal act: assault- Trotman v North Yorkshire CC 1999

A

Facts: a deputy headmaster sexually abused a mentally handicapped teenage boy with epilepsy when he was supposed to be looking after him in a trip to Spain
Held: liable

130
Q

Vicarious liability:criminal act: property offences- Lloyd v Grace 1912

A

Facts: a managing clerk of a solicitors dishonestly advised the C to pass over ownership of two cottages to him with the understanding that he would sell them
Held: liable

131
Q

Vicarious liability:criminal act: property offences- Credit Lyonnaise v Export Credit 1999

A

Facts: an employee of the D assisted in a fraud against a bank, the C. As a result he had not committed a tort and not all the assistance had taken place within the course of employment
Held: not liable

132
Q

Vicarious liability:criminal act: employers indemnity- Lister v Romford 1957

A

Facts: a driver negligently drove over his father
Held: liable

133
Q

Vicarious liability: independent contractors- Padbury v Holiday 1912

A

Facts: D employed contractors to fix windows. During building work they dropped iron tool from the window causing injury
Held: not liable

134
Q

Contributory negligence- Baker v Willoughby 1969

A

Facts: the D tan over the C as a result of careless driving. The C had a clear view of the road for the last 200yards the car was travelling but took no evasive action
Held: 50%contributory negligence this 50% damages

135
Q

Contributory negligence- Cavendish v Spencer 1998

A

Held: the difference between the two valuations should have made the C check. As they did not they were contributory negligent. Damages reduced by 25%

136
Q

Contributory negligence- Jones v Livox 1952

A

Held: contributory negligence, falling off was within the general risk of riding on the machinery

137
Q

Contributory negligence: the standard of care- Jones v Boyce 1816

A

Facts: C jumped from a vehicle he thought was about to turn over, it did not
Held: no contributory negligence, acted reasonably

138
Q

Contributory negligence: the standard of care- Brannon v Airtours 199

A

Held: contributory negligence as warnings had been given against climbing in tables. Damages reduced by 50%

139
Q

Contributory negligence: the standard of care- Barrett v Ministry of Defence 1995

A

Adults should take responsibility for their own alcohol consumption and not expect others to prevent them from getting drunk

140
Q

Contributory negligence: the standard of care- Revill v Newberry 1996

A

Fact: C was a burglar shot by D
Held: contributory negligence

141
Q

Contributory negligence: the standard of care- Reeves v Metropolitan Commissioner 1999

A

Held: contributory negligence

142
Q

Contributory negligence: children- Gough v Thorne 1966

A

Held: no contributory negligence as child acted reasonably for their age

143
Q

Contributory negligence: children- Yachuck v Oliver Blais 1949

A

Held: no contributory negligence as a 9year old could not be expected to realise dangers

144
Q

Contributory negligence: children- Evans v Souls Garage 2000

A

Held: 33% contributory negligence

145
Q

Contributory negligence: reduction of damages- Froom v Butcher 1976

A

Where a seatbelt would have prevented injury, 25% reduction. Where a seatbelt would have reduced injury, 15% reduction

146
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: what will amount to consent?- Smith v Baker 1891

A

Held: no contest, simply knowing of a risk was not consent in itself

147
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: what will amount to consent?- Imperial v Shadwell 1965

A

Held: c had consented to the risk

148
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: what will amount to consent?- Kirkham v Chief Constance of Greater Manchester 1990

A

Facts: police negligent in allowing man to commit suicide
Held: no consent as mentally unsound

149
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: what will amount to consent?- Reeves v Commissioner of police for the metropolis 1999

A

Facts: as kirkham but man mentally capable
Held: no condenser suggesting volenti does no apply to suicide cases

150
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: what will amount to consent?- Sacco v ch constable of s wales constablary 1998

A

Held: volenti, even a child would have realised the risk

151
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: special cases: passengers and in road accidents - Pitts v Hunt 1991

A

Held: volenti did not apply because of s149, driver could not exclude liability

152
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: special cases: sports- Simms v Leigh RFC 1963

A

Facts: c broke his leg when tackled and thrown into a wall
Held: volenti, c was aware of the risks of the game

153
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: special cases: sports- woolridge v sumner 1963

A

Spectators volunteer to risk of harm from players unless intentional or reckless behaviour

154
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: special cases: sports- Smoldon v whitworth 1996

A

Fay s: under 19s rugby game which did not allow collapsed scrums. Referee allowed a collapsed scrum injuring c
Held: outside rules, no consent

155
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: special cases: rescuers- Haynes v Harwood 1935

A

Facts: c was a police officer who tried to stop escaping horses and became injured
Held: no consent as police officer was acting under duty to protect the public

156
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: special cases: rescuers- Chadwick v BRB 1967

A

Facts: man spent hours trying to help people in train crash
Held: no consent, c was not acting out of free choice

157
Q

Volenti non fit injuria: special cases: rescuers- Cutler v United Daries 1933

A

Facts: c tried to recapture horses from a field
Held: volenti as horses creating no risk of harm to people or property

158
Q

Burden of proof& damages: area Ipsa Loquitur- cases

A

•Scott v London & St Katherine’s docks
•Mahon v Osborne
• Pearson v North Western Gas

159
Q

Burden of proof& damages: types of damages: pecuniary losses- Donnelly v Joyce 1972

A

Child claimed for his mothers loss as she had to leave work to look after the injured child

160
Q

Burden of proof& damages: types of damages: pecuniary losses- Doyle v Wallace 1998

A

A women was injured prior to completing training as a drama teacher. If she failed to qualify she would have been a clerk which was a lower paid job. The judge settled in a figure between the two

161
Q

Burden of proof& damages: types of damages: non pecuniary losses- West v Shepherd 1964

A

A married women aged 41 was left partially conscious and paralysed in all 4 limbs. She was awarded £17,500 for loss of amenity

162
Q

Burden of proof& damages: calculating damage- Gardner v Marsh & Parsons 1997

A

Facts: c sued surveyors who had missed a serious structural defect which did not come to light for three years. The c sued for the difference between the price paid and the new market value
Held: for claimants

163
Q

Burden of proof& damages: calculating damage- Emeh v Kensington AHA 1985

A

Facts: c underwent a sterilisation operation but later became pregnant. The D argued that the C should have mitigated by getting an abortion
Held: it was reasonable to refuse an abortion

164
Q

Injunctions: cases-

A

•Redlands Bricks v Morris 1970
•American Cyanamide v Ethicon 1975
•Shelfer v City of London Electric 1895

Law Paper 2&3 (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions