Tort Cases for PQ Flashcards
(125 cards)
1
Q
Must be intentional touching
A
Letang v Cooper
2
Q
Psychological harm considered ‘direct’
A
Wilkinson v Downton
3
Q
Ordinary conduct of everyday life
A
Collins v Wilcock
4
Q
Touching must be hostile
A
Wilson v Pringle
5
Q
Sports give consent
A
Blake v Galloway
6
Q
Consent when in best interest of patient (but apply to courts first)
A
In re F
7
Q
Contributory negligence not a defence
A
Coop v Pritchard
8
Q
Self-defence: belief must be reasonable (not honest)
A
Ashley v CC of Sussex Police
9
Q
Overt act required, anticipation must be reasonable (not paranoia)
A
Mbasogo v Logo
10
Q
Assault even if impossible to carry out battery, as long as reasonable belief
A
Logdon v DPP
11
Q
If clearly impossible, not reasonable
A
Thomas v NUM
12
Q
Made to stay even if possible exit route/enforced compliance satisfies
A
Jalloh
13
Q
Not false imprisonment if alt exit possible
A
Bird v Jones
14
Q
Not false imprisonment if reasonable condition on exit
A
Robinson v Balmain
15
Q
FI need positive act, unless no legal right to detain
A
Iqbal
16
Q
Imprisonment can be justified by necessity if reasonable
A
Austin v Comm. of Met. Police
17
Q
Lower in the estimation of right thinking members of society
A
Sim v Stretch
18
Q
Serious Harm to reputation
A
DA13, s1
19
Q
Serious harm = gravity, scale, attention, etc.
A
Lachaux v Independent Print
20
Q
If statement to group, must establish C included specifically
A
Knuppfer
21
Q
Enough for statement to be substantially true
A
DA13, s2
22
Q
1) Statement of Opinion 2) Factual basis indicated 3) Based on true facts
A
DA13, s3/ Joseph v Spiller
23
Q
1) Statement on Public Interest 2) D reasonably believed in PI
A
DA13, s4/ Serafin v Malkiewicz
24
Q
Reasonable care + no reason to believe
Innocent Dissemination
A
DA96, s1
25
If accepted, C barred from continuing action; if rejected can be defence
| Offer to make amends
DA96, s2-4
26
Only 'right to exclusive possession' (freeholders, leaseholders if contract)
Hunter v Canary Wharf
27
Law more strict towards physical than sensible intereference
Halsey v Esso Petroleum
28
Ordinariness of activity
Bamford v Turnley
29
Locality Principle
Sturges v Bridgman
30
C's hypersensitivity irrelevant (tort to land)
Robinson v Kilvert
31
Deliberately drilling to prevent water flow - no nuisance
| Possible rationale per Taggart: water no come from land (cf: noise)
Mayor of Bradford v Pickles
32
Deliberately make noise to kill fox - nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmet
33
Planning permission irrelevant
Lawrence v Fen Tigers
34
Coming to the nuisance no defence, unless
C changes use; D no nuisance b4, no increase, sensible, reasonable/lawful
35
If bring/keep anth likely to cause mischief when escape, then liable for damage
Rylands v Fletcher
36
Incremental approach in non-novel, in novel find analogy if not caparo
Robinson v West Yorkshire Pol
37
1) Foreseeability 2) Proximity 3) Fair, just and reasonable
Caparo v Dickman
38
No duty to act unless special relationship/assumed responsibility
Stovin v Wise
39
Generally no duty to act bc public resource
Hill v South Yorks Police
40
No duty unless: in control, foreseen, no reasonable care; assumed responsibility
Michael v South Wales Police
41
Part in creating danger = assumed resp
Reeves v Met Police
42
Primary: foresee physical harm
Page v Smith
43
Primary: caused by immediate shock
Rothwell v Chem Insulating Co
44
Secondary test
Alcock v CC of South Yorks
45
Alcock criteria
1) Close ties of love and affection; 2) Proximity in time & space; 3) Means; 4) Customary phlegm; 5) Suddenness
46
Exposed to personal danger (primary), or satisfy Alcock
White v CC of South Yorks
47
PEL not consequential of physical damage not recoverable
Spartan Steel v Martin
48
Undervaluation (bc of physical defect) = PEL
Murphy v Brentwood
49
Test for AR
Hedley Byrne v Heller
50
Hedley Byrne Test
1) Fiduciary relationship of trust & confidence; 2) Voluntary assumption of risk by D; 3) Relied by C; 4) Reasonable reliance
51
Hedley Byrne extended to services
Henderson v Merret Syndicates
52
Hedley Byrne extended to references
Spring v Guardian Assurance
53
No AR if duty arises from law
Customs & Excise v Barclays
54
Just bc willing to assume duty to someone else =/= duty assumed
BNL v Playboy Club London
55
Unreasonable reliance (v obv error) no give rise to AR
Steel v NRAM
56
Very unlikely = no breach
Bolton v Stone
57
If unlikely but v serious = breach
Paris v Stepney BC
58
Cost for D vs Cost for C
Latimer v AEC
59
Point of activity to get injured, but no medical assistance = breach
Watson v British Boxing BC
60
Professional practice test - no breach if supported by responsible body
Bolam v Friern Hospital
61
When more than 1 reasonable opinion, no negate C's own interest
Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB
62
When only 4/10 possible options reasonable, not liable for not informing 6
McCullough v Forth Valley HB
63
Warning must hv relevant danger indicated
Westwood v Post Office
64
No duty to take additional steps j bc ppl no heed warning
Tomlinson v Congleton
65
Objective: duty owed by learner-driver same as driver
Nettleship v Weston
66
Children as exception
Mullin v Richards
67
No lower standard even if schizo
Dunnage v Randall
68
Unawareness of condition taken into consideration - lower standard
Mansfield v Weetabix
69
But For test - on balance of probabilities
Barnett v Chelsea
70
If harm indivisible, D liable for entirety
Williams v Bermuda Hospital
71
Material increase in risk = liable if scientific uncertainty
McGhee
72
Material contribution test: if multiple D, can claim in full from D
Fairchild v Glenhaven
73
C entitled to full damages from D for mesothelioma
Compensation Act 2006, s3
74
Even if C would hv agreed to risk, no inform = loss of autonomy
Chester v Afshar
75
Loss of chance of survival no action
Gregg v Scott
76
Onset of disease breaks chain
Jobling v Associated Dairies
77
Break chain if act unreasonably
McKew v Holland
78
No break if not unreasonable enough
Spencer v Wincanton Holdings
79
3rd party carelessness usually no break
Rouse v Squires
80
Broken in extreme circumstances
Knightley v Jones
81
No break when duty to protect against 3rd party
Home Office v Dorset Yacht
82
No break when 2 consecutive injuries
Baker v Willoughby
83
Did not know and could not reasonably be expected to know = no liability
Wagon Mound No.1
84
Thin Skull Rule: no need know extent
Smith v Leech Brain
85
No need know particulars, genus enough
Jolley v Sutton LBC
86
Loss within scope of duty: purpose of advice/duty (objective)
MBS v Grant Thornton
87
Consent to lack of reasonable care: knowledge of nature and extent of risk
Woolridge v Summer
88
Intoxication no render C incapable of appreciating nature and extent of risk
Morris v Murray
89
Volenti = deliberate collaboration + knowledge, CN = careless collaboration
ICI v Shatwell
90
Foresee risk of injury + can take easy precautions
Law Reform (CN) Act 1945
91
Risky rides
Jones v Livox Quarries
92
Personal beliefs irrelevant (no safety gear)
Froom v Butcher
93
Improper use of safety gear (helmet not fastened)
Capps v Miller
94
No CN when child no knowledge
Yachuk v Oliver Blais
95
If child should hv knowledge, CN
Morales v Eccleston
96
Defence of Illegality Test
Patel v Mirza
97
Patel v Mirza Test
1) Purpose of illegality enhanced by denial?; 2) Conflicting relevant policies; 3) Avoid disproportionate
98
No need to consider 3 if 1 and 2 not met
Stoffel & Co v Grondona
99
Duty to visitors
OLA57
100
Degree of Control test
Wheat v Lacon
101
Danger must be related to state of premises (activity: negligence)
Everett v Comojo
102
Balance likelihood, seriousness, cost, social value
Cook v Swansea/Tomlinson
103
Calling: guard against special risks, Warning: need warning + alternative
Roles v Nathan
104
Duty delegable when damage bc of faulty work of independent contractor
OLA57, s2(4)(b)
105
Duty to Non-visitors
OLA84
106
Reasonable belief that C might come within vicinity
Donoghue v Folkestone
107
Risk reasonably be expected to offer protection
Brown v South West Lakes
108
Non-occupiers: work for dwelling, landlords
Defective Premises Act 1972
109
PL statute
Consumer Protection Act 1987
110
Delegable, unless:1) vulnerable & dependant; 2) positive duty; 3) C no control over D obligations
Woodland v Essex
111
Relationship akin to employment
Cox v MoJ
112
Cox test
1) Activity on behalf of employer; 2) Activity part of business activity; 3) Risk created by employing; Absence of insurance/total lack of control may negate
113
Foster parents = employee
Armes v Nottinghamshire
114
If clear D own independent business, no need test
Barclays v Various Claimants
115
No VL if D on 'frolic of his own'
Joel v Morison
116
Injunction for PN (abt to commit)
Shelfer v LEL
117
Shelfer Test
1) Injury tor rights small; 2) Estimated in money; 3) Adequately compensated by small money; 4) Oppressive to grant injunction
118
If cared by loved one, obliged to give damages to them
Hunt v Severs
119
Lost years: can claim for loss of work earnings for life expectancy dec
Pickett v BRE
120
Insults/abuse during false imp
Thompson v Cmssr of MP
121
Fault but little loss
Constantine v Imperial Hotels
122
No unless: 1) Oppressive/arbitrary/unconstitutional by PA; 2) Aimed to profit from tort > C loss; 3) Statute
Rookes v Barnard
123
Cause of action survives for estate except for punitive, lost years, defamation
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934
124
Bereavement damages for partner/parents if minor/ Loss of support
Fatal Accidents Act 1976
125
Cohabitee w 2 yrs covered for bereavement
Smith v Lancanshire NHS
