Tort: key cases Flashcards Preview

First year law > Tort: key cases > Flashcards

Flashcards in Tort: key cases Deck (223)
Loading flashcards...
1

Donoghue v Stevenson

A manufacturer owes their customers a duty of care, and everyone owes their 'neighbours' (those that it is reasonably foreseeable will be closely and directly affected by their actions) a duty of care. (Ginger beer snail)

2

Anns v Merton

To establish whether a duty of care exists, consider:
1. All foreseeable victims; and
2. Policy considerations;
recovery for economic loss caused by a defective product (not to be followed)

3

BRB v Herrington

An occupier of land owes trespassers a 'common duty of humanity' (child on railway)

4

Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co

Where an authoritative body act negligently while in control of the defendants, this may break the chain of causation, also an omission in such a scenario may give rise to liability

5

Reeves v Metropolitan Police

Custody police may be liable for omitting to prevent a suspect from committing suicide

6

Haynes v Harwood

A person can be liable for omitting to remedy a dangerous situation which they have created (untethered horse)

7

Barret v Ministry of Defence

A person can be liable for omitting to help someone if they have assumed responsibility for them (drunk left on bunk)

8

Yeun Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong

The general rule is that there can be no breach of duty for omissions

9

Goldman v Hargrave

A person may be liable for an omission if the incident occurs on their land; their conduct is judged with respect to their resources and abilities (lightning fire)

10

Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority

A judge may depart from the Bolam principle if the professional support cited is irrational or illogical

11

Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital

Bolam principle: a medical professional can avoid liability if they can point to a professional and responsible body to support their conduct

12

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

A doctor has a duty to disclose risks involved in medical procedures according to the informed choice model

13

Wilsher v Essex AHA

The duty of care owed by a professional relates to their role (i.e. what they are doing) not their rank (i.e. their qualification level), and the courts must establish a >50% chance that D caused the damage

14

Tomlinson v Coggleton

The courts should take into account the social costs of taking precautions when assessing the party's liability; if there is no fault in the land, no case can be brought under the OLA (public lake)

15

Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co

The courts should take into account the utility of D's conduct when assessing the party's liability (heavy lifting gear)

16

Latimer v AEC Ltd

The courts should take into account the burden of taking precautions when assessing the party's liability (sawdust)

17

The Wagon Mound No 2

The courts should take into account the burden of taking precautions when assessing the party's liability (oil tap)

18

Bolton v Stone

The courts should take into account probability/foreseeability when assessing the party's liability (cricket ball)

19

Hilder v Associated Portland Cement

The courts should take into account the severity of harm when assessing the party's liability (children playing by road)

20

Paris v Stepney

The courts should take into account the severity of harm when assessing the party's liability (one eyed mechanic)

21

Mansfield v Weetabix

If D suffers from a relevant disability this may lower the reasonable person standard (hyperglaecemic lorry driver)

22

Dunnage v Randall

For the disability D suffers from to lower the reasonable person standard it must be severe and its effects sudden (petrol schizophrenic)

23

Mullins v Richards

If D is a child the reasonable person test will be lowered to the reasonable child test (ruler sword fight)

24

Wilks v Cheltenham Cycle Club

If D is acting in context which lowers the standard of care (e.g. sport) the reasonable person standard is lowered (motor cycle scramble)

25

Jones v Boyce

If D is acting in an emergency this will lower the reasonable person standard (overturned coach)

26

Nettleship v Weston

We apply an objective standard (the reasonable person) to assess breach of duty (driving lessons)

27

Ashley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police

The defence of self defence applies where D uses reasonable force on V on the reasonable belief that they are under attack i.e. not when V is naked

28

Gray v Thames Trains

The defence of illegality may be applied for public policy reasons (PSTD homicide claim)

29

Reville v Newbury

Not all criminal activity applies to the defence of illegality e.g. where it is vastly disproportionate to the tort, trespassing with respect to occupiers' liability

30

Pitts v Hunt

It is a full defence if C was engaged in criminal activity at the time of the tort e.g. encouraging dangerous driving