Private law Sem 2 revision

Question 1

damnum injuria datum

Answer 1

“damage wrongfully caused.”

Question 2

damnum abseque injuria

Answer 2

“damage without injury.”

Question 3

volenti non fit injuria

Answer 3

“voluntary assumption of risk.”

Question 4

plus quam tolerabile

Answer 4

“more than tolerable.”

Question 5

law of delict is concerned with obligations that are

Answer 5

ex voluntante

Question 6

ex lege

Answer 6

obligation by law

Question 7

donoghue V Stevenson

Answer 7

neighbour principle

Question 8

Bourhill V young

Answer 8

young riding motorbike crashed and died women pregnant seen accident from afar claimed she had shock - held young not liabill no forseeabile

Question 9

Muir V Glasgow Corporation

Answer 9

group of kids were burned by tea spilling -held that the manager wasnt liabill for the unforseeable accident .

Question 10

Bolton v Stone

Answer 10

cricket ball hit women outside her home -incident was so rare that no further precautions were needed to be made .

Question 11

Page V smith

Answer 11

car accident where page caused the incident and smith didnt have any physical injuries but the accident made his pre existing illness worse and preventing him from work- smith was a primary victim

Question 12

Novus Actus Interveniens

Answer 12

new intervening act

Question 13

Causa sine qua non

Answer 13

(but for) this event - without the phone there is no accident.

Question 14

ex voluntante

Answer 14

voluntarily

Question 15

injuria sine damnum

Answer 15

injury without damage

Question 16

causa causans

Answer 16

the immediate cause - defendants actions must be the direct cause of harm

Question 17

Barnett V chelsea and kensington Hosptial management committee

Answer 17

man visited hospital with severe stomach pain doctor told him to go home then the man died later from poisoning - no duty as he would have died anyways.

Question 18

Mcwilliams V archibald

Answer 18

mcwilliams fell to his death when building the forth road bridge his employer never gave him safety harness which was required under law . No claim as even if he was provided with safety equipment he would not have used it.

Question 19

Mctear v imperial Tobacco Ltd

Answer 19

Mctear smoked alot and then died of lung cancer his wife tried to sue the company for the effects of the fags as there was no significant warnings - there was no proof husband had no idea of the effects on smoking .

Question 20

calculus of risk

Answer 20

involves balancing the likelihood and severity of potential harm against the cost and practicality of taking precautions to prevent that harm. This concept is often associated with the “reasonable person” standard.

Question 21

Hill V chief Constable of west yorkshire

Answer 21

Lack of proximity - student was murdered by yorkshire ripper the mother tried to sue police for them not catching the murderer before he murdered the daughter. there was no proximity to the murdered.

Question 22

Brown v Rolls Royce

Answer 22

Brown, a Rolls Royce employee, developed dermatitis from oil exposure at work. He claimed liability due to the lack of barrier cream. The court ruled Rolls Royce was not negligent, as they had reasonable alternative precautions and didn’t need to follow industry practices if their measures were effective

Question 23

Consumer Protection Act 1987

Answer 23

consumer needs to prove that product is defective

Question 24

contributary negligence

Answer 24

reduces the amount of damages payable

Question 25

chain of causation

Answer 25

the chain of causation is broken by reasonable foreseeable conduct on the part of the victim

Question 26

Gregg V scott

Answer 26

Mr. Gregg's doctor misdiagnosed a lump, delaying cancer treatment by 9 months. This reduced his chance of surviving for 10 years from 42% to 25%. The House of Lords held that "loss of a chance" is not recoverable in negligence claims. Liability requires proof that negligence caused the harm.

Question 27

Mckillen V Barclay - curle and co Ltd

Answer 27

McKillen claimed damages for tuberculosis, alleging it was reactivated by a rib fracture sustained in an accident at work. The court held that causation was not proven, as there was no corroboration of expert evidence. Liability requires clear causal connection.

Question 28

Hughes V lord advocate

Answer 28

Two boys explored an unattended manhole left by workmen, using a paraffin lamp. The lamp was dropped, causing an unforeseeable explosion that injured them. The House of Lords held that the type of harm (burns) was foreseeable, even if the specific way it occurred was not.

Question 29

Defamation and Malicious Publications (scotland) Act 2021

Answer 29

the publications of a statement in a scientific journal is privileged if requirements are met

Question 30

Kays Tutor v Ayrshire and Arron health board

Answer 30

child was admitted to hospital with meningitis and mistakenly given a penicillin overdose. The child later went deaf. The court held that causation was not proven, as meningitis itself is a known cause of deafness, and there was no evidence linking the overdose to the harm. Liability requires clear proof of causation.

Question 31

McFarlane v Tayside Health Board (2000)

Answer 31

McFarlane underwent a vasectomy, but his wife later became pregnant due to medical negligence. The House of Lords awarded damages for the pain and inconvenience of pregnancy but denied claims for the costs of raising the child, stating it was not fair or reasonable to impose liability for upbringing costs.

Question 32

Tindall V Chief Constable of west Yorkshire

Answer 32

This case involved a road traffic accident caused by black ice. The police attended the scene, placed warning signs, and later removed them without addressing the ice. A subsequent accident occurred, leading to fatalities. The court examined whether the police’s actions made the danger worse, but no duty of care was established.

Question 33

The wagon mound No.2

Answer 33

Oil spilled from the Wagon Mound into Sydney Harbour due to negligence. Sparks from welding ignited the oil, causing a fire that damaged nearby vessels. The Privy Council held the fire was reasonably foreseeable, and the defendants were liable. This case emphasized foreseeability in negligence.

Question 34

Hughes v Lord Advocate

Answer 34

Two boys explored an unattended manhole left by workmen, using a paraffin lamp. The lamp was accidentally dropped, causing an unforeseeable explosion that injured them. The House of Lords held that the type of harm (burns) was foreseeable, even though the specific manner of the harm was not. This case established that foreseeability applies to the kind of harm, not its precise mechanism.

Question 35

Mckillen v Barclay curle & CO Ltd

Answer 35

McKillen claimed damages for tuberculosis, alleging it was reactivated by a rib fracture sustained in a workplace accident. The court held causation was not proven, as expert evidence lacked corroboration. Liability requires a clear causal link.

Question 36

Waugh V James K Allan

Answer 36

A lorry driver, feeling unwell, suffered a fatal coronary thrombosis while driving, causing the vehicle to mount a pavement and injure a pedestrian. The court held there was no liability, as the driver could not have reasonably foreseen the sudden onset of the thrombosis. The act was deemed involuntary.

Question 37

Cox v Ministry of Justice

Answer 37

Mrs. Cox, a catering manager at HM Prison Swansea, was injured when a prisoner dropped a sack of rice on her back. The Supreme Court held the Ministry of Justice vicariously liable, as the prisoner’s work was integral to the prison’s operations, meeting the criteria for vicarious liability beyond traditional employment relationships.

Question 38

Campbell v MGN Ltd

Answer 38

Naomi Campbell sued the Mirror Group for publishing photos of her leaving a Narcotics Anonymous meeting, claiming breach of privacy. The House of Lords held that the details of her therapy and covertly taken photos infringed her Article 8 rights, outweighing the newspaper’s Article 10 rights to freedom of expression.

Question 39

Lomond V Glasgow Corporation

Answer 39

golf balls landing on path. Foreseeability of harm

Question 40

Sayers V Harlow UDC

Answer 40

A woman was trapped in a public lavatory due to a faulty lock. While attempting to climb out, she fell and was injured. The court held the council liable for negligence but reduced damages by 25% due to contributory negligence, as her escape attempt involved unnecessary risk.

Question 41

Paris v stepney UDC

Answer 41

Paris, who had sight in only one eye, was employed in a garage and not provided safety goggles. A metal splinter injured his good eye, leaving him blind. The court held the employer liable, emphasizing that greater precautions are required for employees with known vulnerabilities.

Question 42

Ward V Tesco Stores

Answer 42

A customer slipped on spilled yoghurt in a Tesco store. The Court of Appeal applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, holding Tesco liable. The accident was deemed one that would not occur without negligence, shifting the burden to Tesco to prove they had taken reasonable care.

Question 43

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Answer 43

A factory floor became slippery after flooding. The employer spread sawdust and placed warning signs but did not shut down operations. An employee slipped and was injured. The court held the employer was not negligent, as they took reasonable precautions and were not required to eliminate all risks.

Question 44

Harris V perry

Answer 44

A child was injured on a bouncy castle at a party when an older, larger child performed a somersault and collided with him. The Court of Appeal held that constant supervision was not required. The standard of care was that of a reasonable parent, and the accident was deemed a tragic but unforeseeable event.

Question 45

McKew V Holland Hannen & Cubitts

Answer 45

McKew suffered a leg injury at work, causing weakness. Later, he attempted to descend steep stairs without a handrail, fell, and fractured his ankle. The court held his actions were unreasonable, breaking the chain of causation (novus actus interveniens). Liability was limited to the initial injury.

Question 46

Bolam v Friern Hospital Managment Committee

Answer 46

A patient undergoing electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) suffered fractures due to the absence of muscle relaxants or restraints. The court established the Bolam test: a medical professional is not negligent if their actions align with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals, even if others disagree.

Question 47

Watt V Jamieson

Answer 47

A tenant suffered damage due to water vapor and steam escaping from a neighbor’s property. The Scottish Court of Session held that nuisance occurs when the use of property causes substantial inconvenience or material damage to another’s property. The focus is on the victim’s perspective, not the offender’s intent. PLUS QUAM TOLERABILE