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
