Tort Cases

Question 1

Donoghue v. Stevenson

Answer 1

Her friend buys faulty ginger beer, not her. Sues factory not café & succeeds. Establishes a duty of care between customer and manufacturer.

Question 2

Wisher v. Essex

Answer 2

She incorrectly performs a procedure. Sets the precedent that experience doesn’t matter, everyone held to the same standard (act not the actor). However - liability may be limited if help is sought from someone more experienced, like she did so.

Question 3

Roberts v. Ramsbottom

Answer 3

He went driving & caused an accident but it was due to a stroke that he had no idea about. Sets the standard that you are not liable if you don’t know about the medical impairment (i.e. acting like a reasonable driver).

Question 4

Mansfield v. Weetabix

Answer 4

While he was medically impaired - and knew about it - the driver crashed into a shop. Was liable. Compare with Roberts v. Ramsbottom.

Question 5

Nettleship v. Weston

Answer 5

Learner driver causes an accident. Sets the standard that one must act as a reasonable driver on the road - no matter their experience (act not the actor).

Question 6

Caparo Industries v. Dickman (Caparo Test)

Answer 6

To determine duty of care. Foreseeability of harm, relationship of sufficient proximity & fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty. Only needed without a precedent (i.e. Nettleship v. Weston)

Question 7

Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Answer 7

Advance this area of law in an incremental way. Heavily use & build upon established authority.

Question 8

Cassidy v. Ministry of Health

Answer 8

Medical professionals owe a duty of care to patients once they have accepted them for treatment.

Question 9

Baker v. T.E. Hopkins & Son Ltd.

Answer 9

Dr Baker knowingly descended into a well with poisonous fumes to rescue two workers and died due to fumes. Dr Baker was owed a duty of care as it was reasonably foreseeable that someone would rescue the workers in danger.

Question 10

Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Answer 10

The police owe a duty of care to the public to protect them from reasonably foreseeable
physical injury when carrying out an arrest.

Question 11

Watson v. British Boxing Board of Control

Answer 11

Boxer expected reasonable medical assistance to be available immediately in the case of serious injury. He consented to the fight & danger (volenti non fit injuria) - he did not consent to breaching duty of care or poor planning on the part of the BBBC. Injury (brain damage) - foreseeable; defendant - assumed responsibility; imposing a duty - fair, just & reasonable.

Question 12

Smith v. Littlewoods Organisation Ltd.

Answer 12

Standard set of no duty imposed on a failure to act (i.e. failing to rescue a stranger drowning) barring any exclusions and no duty for the actions of third parties barring exclusions

Question 13

Stansbie v. Troman

Answer 13

Defendant (decorator) breached his duty of care by failing to shut the doors to the house (omission). Burglars subsequently entered and robbed the claimant. Duty of care & breach by omission established. If you fail to perform a contractual duty, this may create a duty avoid omissions.

Question 14

Reeves v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Answer 14

He attempted suicide, failed and sued police for breach of duty of care. Held that police owed a duty to prevent a prisoner taking his own life as there was a high degree of control over the prisoner when he was placed in their care & a high risk of this. Where the defendant has sufficient control over the claimant (i.e. parent over child) there is a duty avoid omissions.

Question 15

Barrett v. Ministry of Defence

Answer 15

Naval officer helped victim when he got drunk. Victim later choked to death on his own vomit. As officer assumed responsibility, he breached his duty of care. Where defendant assumes responsibility for claimant there is a duty of care to avoid omissions.

Question 16

Goldman v. Hargrave

Answer 16

Naturally occurring fire occurs. Defendant should’ve taken reasonable steps to mitigate but did not. Wind reignited fire and caused damage to claimant’s land. Defendant liable. Where defendant creates the risk, they are liable for omissions & have a duty of care.

Question 17

Kent v Griffiths & Others

Answer 17

Set the standard that ambulances must respond to a 999 call within a reasonable time. However, the ambulance service can exercise discretion to deal with a more pressing emergency.

Question 18

Capital and Counties plc v Hampshire County Coun

Answer 18

Firefighter ordered a sprinkler system at the fire be turned off. Fire worsened. Fire brigade do not have to attemd but they have a duty to not make things worse through a positive act.

Question 19

Alexandrou v Oxford

Answer 19

Police owe no duty of care to respond to emergency calls but can owe other duties.

Question 20

Home Office v Dorset Yacht

Answer 20

Defendants left borstal boys in their care unsupervised. Borstal boys escaped island with claimant’s yachts and damaged them. Defendants liable due to sufficient proximity between claimant & defendant. Standard where there is sufficient proximity between defendant and claimant.

Question 21

Swinney v. Chief Constable of Northumbria

Answer 21

Claimant was police informer who gave information based on the condition she was kept anonymous. Her police file was negligently left unattended and subsequently stolen. She was harassed and thus, suffered psychiatric illness. There was sufficient proximity between claimant (her) & defendant (police). Police liable.

Question 22

Hill v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire

Answer 22

Mother of last victim of Yorkshire Ripper sued police. He had been questioned by police & then released; subsequently murdered her daughter. No duty of care imposed as there was not sufficient proximity between claimant (mother) and defendant (police).

Question 23

CN and GN v Poole Borough Council

Answer 23

Liability of a public authority is in principle the same as that of a private person, in terms of positive acts & omissions. Even if council had the power to take the children into care, insufficient to show the council had a duty to do so.

Question 24

Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough

Answer 24

Local authority psychologist misdiagnosed claimant’s dyslexia as a child. Duty of care owed as local authority assumed responsibility for a child’s educational needs & breached as they failed to provide appropriate education.

Question 25

Jebson v. Ministry of Defence

Answer 25

Drunk claimant soldier injured returning from night out organised by camp commander. Claimant (soldier) injured whilst trying to climb onto moving lorry. Commander assumed responsibility and breached by allowing him to get hurt by failing to provide transport & supervision.

Question 26

Mulcahy v. Ministry of Defence

Answer 26

The army do not owe a duty to soldiers in battle conditions (during active combat)

Question 27

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

Answer 27

Sets the standard of what ‘duty of care’ is. To live up to this: someone does not have to do everything possible to prevent harm. Rather, they have to reach the standard of what a reasonable person would do.

Question 28

Glasgow Corporation v Muir

Answer 28

Determining what a reasonable person is - is an impersonal test. The reasonable man is presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and from over-confidence.

Question 29

Condon v. Basi

Answer 29

A higher degree of care would be required of a first division footballer than of a local league player. Standard of care differs within competitive sports objective in differing sets of circumstances.

Question 30

Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee (Bolam Test)

Answer 30

Claimant treated for depression. Went through electro-shock therapy without muscle relaxants as using & not using were both respected medical opinions at the time. Suffered fractured pelvis. Defendant not liable as acted responsible at the time. Sets the standard that one must act as a responsible professional (responsible doctor, lawyer, architect etc.) when acting in this role and purporting to have this skill set.

Question 31

Mullin v. Richards

Answer 31

Claimant and defendant (15 year olds) engage in a play fight at school with plastic rulers. A piece of ruler hits claimant in the eye. Defendant not liable as she acted like a reasonable 15 year old & wouldn’t have foreseen the risk. Sets the standard for a child to act like a reasonable child of the same age (i.e. 15 year old).

Question 32

Bolton v. Stone

Answer 32

Claimant injured by cricket ball hit outside cricket ground. Ground had a 7ft high fence around it & it only happened 6 times in last 30 years. Defendant not liable as reasonable person wouldn’t have guarded against every risk. Highlights factor of likelihood of harm - the more likely someone is to get injured, the more likely there will be a breach.

Question 33

Haley v. London Electricity Board

Answer 33

Blind claimant fell down a hole dug in pavement by claimant. Defendant didn’t take precautions to protect blind people. Likelihood of harm to blind people was not small nor should it have been. Defendant liable. The more likely someone is to get injured, the more likely it is that there will be a breach.

Question 34

Paris v. Stepney Borough Council

Answer 34

Claimant only had one good eye, as known by his employers. He had no protective googles and became blind after metal went into his eyes. Risk of injury was small but magnitude of injury was immense and so greater care should’ve been taken to protect his eyesight. Defendant liable. If any injury that may occur would be serious, greater care will be needed than if the risk was of a more minor injury.

Question 35

Latimer v. AEC Ltd

Answer 35

Defendant’s factory floor was slippery. Defendant took some precautions by laying down sawdust but claimant still slipped. More effective precautions were unreasonable - shutting the factory down or employ many more people. Defendant not liable. To satisfy the duty of care, a defendant need only act reasonably. If it would be unreasonable to require the necessary precautions, even against a clearly foreseeable risk, court will accordingly not impose liability

Question 36

Watt v. Hertfordshire County Council

Answer 36

Fireman injured by lifting equipment required which had not been properly secured in transit. However, risk of injury was small, and the ultimate aim of saving life justified taking the risk. Where life is at stake, abnormal risks may be justified. This is not a blanket exemption for the emergency services. One must consider the benefit of the defendant’s conduct and potential benefits to safety against possible damage/risk.

Question 37

Ward v. L.C.C

Answer 37

Though there can be reduction of liability based upon the benefit od the defendant’s conduct is not a blanket exemption for emergency services. Fire authority was held liable for damage caused by going through a red light on the way to a fire.

Question 38

Roe v. Minister of Health

Answer 38

State of the art defence. Take into account the time period/context & if they acted like a reasonable professional. Claimants suffered paralysis from waist down after iniected with anaesthetic contaminated with phenol used to keep the ampoules disinfected. Unfair to expect them to know of or expect the danger at the time (1947) as it was up to date at the time. Defendant not liable.

Question 39

Wooldridge v. Sumner

Answer 39

When defendant is participating in sport, demands of the game will be prominent and they are likely to take risks in the heat of the moment. Nothing short of reckless disregard for the claimant’s safety would constitute a breach.

Question 40

Watson v. Gray

Answer 40

There would be a breach if a reasonable participant (of the defendant’s level) would have known there was a significant risk that what they did could result in serious injury.

Question 41

Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital (‘But For’ Test)

Answer 41

Establishes the ‘but for’ test. Patient drank poisoned tea. Doctor failed to carry out a proper exam & patient died. Even if the doctor had examined him, however, he still would’ve died. Doctor not liable.

Question 42

Chester v. Afshar

Answer 42

Standard set for how to apply ‘but for’ when the breach is a failure to advise. Surgeon failed to disclosure minute risk of paralysis. Claimant suffered paralysis in one leg. Claimant proved she would not have had the surgery had she been warned (‘but for’). Defendant liable.

Question 43

Bonnington Castings v. Wardlaw

Answer 43

Departs from ‘but for’ test. Sets a standard of how to approach a case when there are multiple, cumulative factors for the loss. Claimant developed respiratory disease due to exposure of dust at work. Some dust was tortious, some was to be expected. However, by proving the tortious dust materially contributed & made a more than negligible contribution to the loss, he succeeded. Defendant liable.

Question 44

Bailey v. Ministry of Defence

Answer 44

Due to claimant’s weakness, she choked on her vomit & suffered brain damage. Weakness caused by natural progression (non-tortious) & negligent lack of care (tortious). Cumulative factors & the tortious factor had a material contribution. Defendant liable.

Question 45

McGhee v National Coal Board.

Answer 45

Departure from ‘but for’ test, reliant on material increase in risk, failed to prove this. Claimant developed dermatitis due to exposure to brick dust. This brick dust was not tortious. However, there was no suitable washing facilities so it was on his skin longer than needed (tortious). However, it couldn’t be proven that this tortious exposure had a material impact. Defendant not liable.

Question 46

Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd.

Answer 46

Claimant worked for several employers who all exposed him to asbestos. Twenty five years later, he developed mesothelioma. Unable to say who caused it. All defendants (employers) liable.

Question 47

Hotson v. East Berkshire Health Authority

Answer 47

Establishes loss of chance. Child fell from a tree and broke his leg. Hospital negligent in treatment and child left paralysed. 75% chance he would have been paralysed anyway. Defendant not liable. Loss of chance doesn’t often apply to medical negligence or personal injury but has been used in pure economic loss cases.

Question 48

Allied Maples Group v. Simmons & Simmons

Answer 48

Loss of chance in pure economic loss case. Claimant lost the chance to negotiate a clause in a contract due to solicitor’s failure to advise. Causation = successful as the claimant proved there was a real and substantial chance the seller would have agreed to the clause.

Question 49

Fitzgerald v. Lane & Patel

Answer 49

Apportionment & failure to take responsibility for claimant’s own safety. Claimant crossed road at a pelican crossing when he shouldn’t. First defendant driver collided with him. He was thrown from the bonnet and hit by a second defendant. Both defendants had been negligent, but the claimant was also at fault. Impossible to say which of the two collisions had actually caused the injuries, or to what extent. 25% of loss imposed on 1st driver, 25% imposed on 2nd driver, 50% not recoverable due to claimant’s own negligence.

Question 50

Performance Cars v. Abraham

Answer 50

One way to view multiple sufficient causes. Arguably, if there is no additional damage as shown here, the second party will likely not be liable. Where there is more than one defendant, each of whom passes the ‘but for’ test for distinct separate losses, but one of their actions comes after the other, consider multiple sufficient causes. Claimant’s Rolls Royce was negligently damaged & they successfully got damages but similar damage occured two weeks later. As it required the same treatment, no damages could be recouped.

Question 51

Baker v. Willoughby

Answer 51

Another way to view multiple sufficient causes. Both defendants will be liable for their individual tortious acts if breach is established. Potentially, like here, first defendant may be liable for both breaches depending on the circumstances (i.e. ability to pay). However, Baker may be confined in of itself. Due to defendant’s negligence, claimant suffered a leg injury. Subsequently, claimant was shot in a robbery and his injured leg had to be amputated. Robbers could not be found. Defendant found to be liable on both counts and needed to compensate accordingly.

Question 52

Jobling v. Associated Dairies

Answer 52

Defendant liable for damage only up to the natural event (potentially novus actus) & not any following damages/loss/consequences.

Question 53

Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v. Royal Norwegian Government

Question 54

Knightley v. Johns

Question 55

Wright v. Cambridge Medical Group

Question 56

McKew v. Holland & Hanmen & Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd.

Question 57

Wieland v. Cyril Lord Carpets

Question 58

The Wagon Mound (No. 1)

Question 59

Bradford v. Robinson Rentals

Question 60

Tremain v. Pike

Question 61

Hughes v. Lord Advocate

Question 62

Vacwell Engineering v. BDH Chemicals

Question 63

Smith v. Leech Brain

Question 64

Lagden v. O’Connor

Question 65

Reeves v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Question 66

Morris v. Murray

Question 67

Dann v. Hamilton

Question 68

Smith v. Charles Baker & Sons

Question 69

Owens v. Brimmell

Question 70

Sayers v. Harlow UDC

Question 71

Jones v. Boyce

Question 72

Gough v. Thorne

Question 73

Harrison v. BRB

Question 74

St George v. Home Office

Question 75

Froom v. Butcher

Question 76

Fitzgerald v. Lane

Question 77

Gray v. Thames Trains

Question 78

Delaney v. Pickett

Question 79

Patel v. Mirza

Question 80

Henderson v. Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trusts

Question 81

Pitts v. Hunt

Question 82

North v. TNT Express (UK) Ltd.

Question 83

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Southport Corp

Question 84

McDermid v. Nash Dredging

Question 85

Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co Ltd v. English

Question 86

Hudson v. Ridge Manufacturing Company Ltd.

Question 87

Qualcast v. Haynes

Question 88

Yorkshire Traction Co Ltd. v. Walter Searby

Question 89

Wilson v. Tyneside Cleaning Co

Question 90

General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v. Christmas

Question 91

Bux v. Slough Metals

Question 92

Clifford v. Charles Challen and Son Ltd.

Question 93

Woods v. Durable Suites Ltd.

Question 94

Bowater v. Rowley Regis Corporation

Question 95

ICI Ltd. v. Shatwell

Question 96

Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd.

Question 97

Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets plc

Question 98

Fletcher v. Chancery Lane Supplies

Question 99

Century Insurance v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

Question 100

Harvey v. RG O’Dell

Question 101

Rose v. Plenty

Question 102

Smith v. Stages

Question 103

Joel v. Morrison

Question 104

Beard v. London General Omnibus Co

Question 105

Storey v. Ashton

Question 106

Twine v. Bean’s Express Ltd.

Question 107

Ready Mixed Concrete v. Minister of Pensions

Question 108

Barclays Bank Plc v. Various Claimants

Question 109

Cox v. Ministry of Justice

Question 110

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and Griffiths

Question 111

Viasystems Ltd v. Thermal Transfer Ltd and Others

Question 112

Page v. Smith

Question 113

Dulieu v. White

Question 114

McFarlane v EE Caledonia Ltd.

Question 115

Hinz v. Berry

Question 116

Bourhill v. Young

Question 117

Brice v. Brown

Question 118

McLoughlin v. O’Brian

Question 119

North Glamorgan NHS Trust v. Walters

Question 120

Sion v. Hampstead Health Authority

Question 121

Weller & Co v. Foot & Mouth Disease Research Institute

Question 122

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council

Question 123

Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd.

Question 124

White v. Jones

Question 125

Spring v. Guardian Assurance plc & Others

Question 126

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd

Question 127

Stevenson v. Nationwide Building Society

Question 128

Chaudhry v. Prabhakar and Another

Question 129

Lejonvarn v. Burgess

Question 130

Henderson v. Merrett Syndicates Ltd.

Question 131

Banca Nazionale del Lavoro v. Playboy Club & Others

Question 132

Manchester Building Society v. Grant Thornton UK LLP

Question 133

Smith v. Eric S. Bush

Question 134

Hedley Byrne v. Heller

Question 135

Hunter and Others v. Canary Wharf Ltd [1997]

Answer 135

You must have a legal interest in the land (i.e. owner or tenant) - mere permission to occupy or use is insufficient.

Question 136

Matania v. National Provincial Bank [1936]

Answer 136

Liable for private nuisance when inviting independent contractors on the property to work

Question 137

Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan [1940]

Answer 137

Can be liable for the actions of trespassers/visitors/predecessors if they continue or adopt the nuisance. You continue if you (ought to) know & do nothing. Adopt if you make use of the thing causing a nuisance.

Question 138

Goldman v. Hargrave [1967] (FUCKING AUSTRALIA???)

Answer 138

Naturally occuring nuisances. Should take reasonable steps (i.e. properly dousing a fire on the property.) However, you are not expected to bankrupt yourself.

Question 139

Coventry v. Lawrence [2014]

Answer 139

Landleeches are not usually liable. A landleech can only be liable for their tenant’s nuisance if they authorised it, by actively and directly participating in it, or leasing the property where there’s a very high degree of probability that leasing the land would result in that nuisance being created.

Question 140

Bamford v. Turnley (1862)

Question 141

St Helen’s Smelting Co v. William Tipping (1865)

Question 142

Walter v. Selfe (1851)

Question 143

Rylands v. Fletcher

Question 144

British Celanese v. AH Hunt Ltd [1969]

Question 145

Crown River Cruises Ltd v. Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996]

Question 146

Kennaway v. Thompson [1981]

Question 147

Sturges v. Bridgman (1879)

Question 148

Adams v. Ursell [1913]

Question 149

Gillingham Borough Council v. Medway (Chatham) Dock Co Ltd [1993]

Question 150

Wheeler v. JJ Saunders Ltd [1996]

Question 151

Tomlinson v. Congleton BC [2004]

Question 152

Wheat v. Lacon [1966]

Question 153

Bailey v. Armes (1999)

Question 154

Ferguson v. Welsh [1987]

Question 155

Wheeler v. Copas [1981]

Question 156

Pearson v. Coleman Bros [1948]

Question 157

Darby v. National Trust [2001]

Question 158

Stone v. Taffe and Another [1974]

Question 159

Lowery v. Walker [1911]

Question 160

Edwards v. Railways Executive [1952]

Question 161

Pollock v. Cahill [2015]

Question 162

Taylor v. Glasgow City Council [1922]

Question 163

Jolley v. Sutton LBC [2000]

Question 164

Phipps v. Rochester Corporation [1955]

Question 165

Phipps v. Rochester Corporation [1955]

Question 166

Roles v. Nathan (Trading as Manchester Assembly Rooms) [1963]

Question 167

Tedstone v. Bourne Leisure Ltd [2008]

Question 168

Laverton v. Kiapasha [2002]

Question 169

Staples v. West Dorset District Council [1995]

Question 170

Haseldine v. Daw [1941]

Question 171

White v. Blackmore [1972]

Question 172

Titchener v. British Railway Board [1983]

Question 173

Young v. Kent CC [2005]

Question 174

Robert Addie & Son (Collieries) Ltd v. Dumbreck [1929]

Question 175

Rhind v. Astbury Water Park Ltd [2004]

Question 176

Donoghue v. Folkestone Properties Ltd [2003]

Question 177

Swain v. Natui Ram Puri [1996]

Question 178

Tomlinson v. Congleton Borough Council [2003]

Question 179

Young v. Kent County Council [2005]

Question 180

Ratcliff v. McConnell and Harper Adams College [1997]

Question 181

British Railway Board v. Herrington [1972]

Question 182

Richardson v. LRC Products Ltd [2000]

Question 183

Abouzaid v. Mothercare (UK) Ltd.

Question 184

A v. National Blood Authority [2001]

Question 185

Stennett v. Hancock [1939]

Question 186

Haseldine v. CA Daw [1941]

Question 187

Malfroot v. Noxal Ltd (1935)