Tort: key cases Flashcards
(223 cards)
1
Q
Donoghue v Stevenson
A
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
Q
Anns v Merton
A
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
Q
BRB v Herrington
A
An occupier of land owes trespassers a ‘common duty of humanity’ (child on railway)
4
Q
Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co
A
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
Q
Reeves v Metropolitan Police
A
Custody police may be liable for omitting to prevent a suspect from committing suicide
6
Q
Haynes v Harwood
A
A person can be liable for omitting to remedy a dangerous situation which they have created (untethered horse)
7
Q
Barret v Ministry of Defence
A
A person can be liable for omitting to help someone if they have assumed responsibility for them (drunk left on bunk)
8
Q
Yeun Kun Yeu v AG of Hong Kong
A
The general rule is that there can be no breach of duty for omissions
9
Q
Goldman v Hargrave
A
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
Q
Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority
A
A judge may depart from the Bolam principle if the professional support cited is irrational or illogical
11
Q
Bolam v Friern Barnet Hospital
A
Bolam principle: a medical professional can avoid liability if they can point to a professional and responsible body to support their conduct
12
Q
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
A
A doctor has a duty to disclose risks involved in medical procedures according to the informed choice model
13
Q
Wilsher v Essex AHA
A
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
Q
Tomlinson v Coggleton
A
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
Q
Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co
A
The courts should take into account the utility of D’s conduct when assessing the party’s liability (heavy lifting gear)
16
Q
Latimer v AEC Ltd
A
The courts should take into account the burden of taking precautions when assessing the party’s liability (sawdust)
17
Q
The Wagon Mound No 2
A
The courts should take into account the burden of taking precautions when assessing the party’s liability (oil tap)
18
Q
Bolton v Stone
A
The courts should take into account probability/foreseeability when assessing the party’s liability (cricket ball)
19
Q
Hilder v Associated Portland Cement
A
The courts should take into account the severity of harm when assessing the party’s liability (children playing by road)
20
Q
Paris v Stepney
A
The courts should take into account the severity of harm when assessing the party’s liability (one eyed mechanic)
21
Q
Mansfield v Weetabix
A
If D suffers from a relevant disability this may lower the reasonable person standard (hyperglaecemic lorry driver)
22
Q
Dunnage v Randall
A
For the disability D suffers from to lower the reasonable person standard it must be severe and its effects sudden (petrol schizophrenic)
23
Q
Mullins v Richards
A
If D is a child the reasonable person test will be lowered to the reasonable child test (ruler sword fight)
24
Q
Wilks v Cheltenham Cycle Club
A
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
31
Vellino v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police
It is a full defence if C was engaged in criminal activity at the time of the tort e.g. evading police capture
32
White v Blackmore
An exclusion clause may be a successful full defence where it is reasonably visible - it does not have to be proved that C read or understood it (motor racing ropes)
33
Woolridge v Summer
In partaking in dangerous sport you consent to a lowered standard of care, but not to unreasonable behaviour (horse photographer)
34
Morris v Murray
```
For the defence of consent you need:
1. Agreement
2. Knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk
3. Voluntary choice
(drunk plane)
```
35
Smith v Baker
The defence of consent does not apply in employment cases; for it to apply there must be a voluntary choice by the claimant (economic pressure)
36
Dann v Hamilton
The defence of consent does not apply in road traffic cases; for it to apply there must be full knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk (accepting drunk lift)
37
Froom v Butcher
The contributory negligence damage reduction for not wearing a seatbelt will be...
25% if the damage would have been avoided
15% if the damage would have been lessened
0% if it would have made no difference
38
Copps v Miller
The contributory negligence damage reduction for not wearing a helmet will be...
25% if the damage would have been avoided
15% if the damage would have been lessened
0% if it would have made no difference
39
Jackson v Murray
The defence of contributory negligence reduces the damages awarded by the extent to which C's own conduct caused the loss, respecting what is just and equitable (girl crossing behind bus)
40
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
The 'but for' test can be used to establish factual causation (arsenic tea)
41
Summers v Tice
The 'but for' test is limited by the possibility of causal indetermination e.g. two bullets striking the same person, in which case liability will be spread between the tortfeasors
42
The Koursk
The 'but for' test is limited where there are multiple operative causes, in which case each defendant is liable for the whole loss
43
Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw
The 'but for' test is limited where there are combined causes e.g. 'guilty' dust and 'innocent' dust, in which case C will have to prove that D’s negligence materially contributed to the loss
44
Baker v Willoughby
Where there are two incidents with overlapping effects, if the second is tortious e.g. a shooting, then the causer of the first incident e.g. a leg injury, will be liable
45
Jobling v Associated Dairies
Where there are two incidents with overlapping effects, if the second is non-tortious e.g. a disease, then the causer of the first incident e.g. a back injury, will not be liable
46
Wagon Mound No 1
When considering whether the damage caused is too remote, we consider the type of loss not the extent of the loss
47
Tremain v Pike
The courts can take a narrow interpretation of the 'type not extent' rule e.g. distinguishing between different types of rat related disease
48
McKew v Holland
The claimant themselves can break the chain of causation if their actions are irresponsible e.g. going down a dangerous staircase
49
Weiland v Cyril Lord Carpets
The claimant themselves will not break the chain of causation if their actions are responsible e.g. being helped down the stairs
50
Hogan v Bentick
Medical conduct will not break the chain of causation where it is merely negligible
51
Palmer v Tees Health Authority
A third party having control of D will not break the chain of causation where that party does not have a duty of care towards D (released psychopath)
52
The Oropesa
A third party's instinctive intervention will not break the chain of causation e.g. sending out life boats to rescue passengers on a ship
53
Knightly v Johns
A third party's negligent intervention may break the chain of causation where it was a deliberate choice to perform a positive act e.g. sending a motorbike the wrong way down a tunnel
54
Rouse v Squires
A third party's negligent intervention may not break the chain of causation where it was simply an error of judgement e.g. obstructing a road
55
Fairchild v Glenhaven
In mesothelioma cases there will be join liability for all guilty defendants involved
56
McGhee v NCB
The court may adopt a 'material increase in risk' approach to legal causation (brick dust shower)
57
Hotson v East Berkshire AHA
There can be no compensation for the loss of a chance e.g. arising from a failure to diagnose a fracture
58
Gregg v Scott
There can be no compensation for the loss of a chance e.g. arising from delay to a diagnosis of cancer
59
Holtby v Brigham
The court may adopt a 'material contribution to loss' approach to causation. If the loss is indivisible, C will be awarded 100% compensation, and if it is divisible they will be awarded less (asbestos)
60
Kent v Griffiths
An ambulance owes the public a duty of care as soon as a call is answered (ambulance delay)
61
Michael v South Wales Police
The police owe a duty of care if they cause damage, or assume responsibility for someone, but they do not owe a duty to protect the public from third parties e.g. vengeful partners
62
Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
It must be just, fair, and reasonable to impose a duty of care on someone (Yorkshire ripper)
63
Capital & Counties v Hampshire County Council
The fire brigade owe a duty of care if they worsen damage, but do not owe a duty to answer or respond to calls (sprinklers turned off)
64
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
To establish a duty of care you must...
1. Look to precedent; if this is not available:
2. Foreseeability
3. Proximity
4. Just, fair, and reasonable;
you only owe a duty not to make negligent misstatements to known recipients for known purposes
65
Palsgraf v Long Island Rail Road
A person only owes a duty of care to another if they are a foreseeable victim e.g. not someone across a railway who is hit by something caused to move by fireworks dropped out of a moving train
66
Bourhill v Young
A person only owes a duty of care to another if they are a foreseeable victim e.g. not a pregnant woman who suffers a miscarriage after stepping off a tram to witness a road accident; 'customary phlegm'
67
Wheat v Lacon
An occupier is anyone with sufficient control over the premises (pub stairs)
68
Lowery v Walker
A 'visitor' under the OLA may have express or implied permission to be there (horse attack on shortcut)
69
The Calgarth
"When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters, you invite him to use the staircase in the ordinary way in which it is used." - Scrutton LJ
70
Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council
An occupier must take special care to make sure children on his property are reasonably safe (abandoned boat)
71
Phipps v Rochester Corporation
A parent's duty to keep their children safe may override an occupier's duty to take care to keep children on their land safe (unsupervised toddler fallen down ditch)
72
Roles v Nathan
An occupier may expect professionals on their land to safeguard against risks which may arise from their work (chimney sweeps)
73
Eden v West & Co
An occupier should not expect professionals on their land to safeguard against risks which would not ordinarily arise from their work (no support in window)
74
West Sussex County Council v Pierce
Occupiers do not have a duty to warn against everything - visitors must take some responsibility for themselves (school water fountain)
75
Staples v West Dorset District Council
Occupiers do not have a duty to warn against everything e.g. the slipperiness of algae
76
Poppleton v Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee
Occupiers do not have a duty to warn against everything e.g. falling off a climbing wall
77
Bottomley v Tormorden Cricket Club
The more dangerous a situation, the greater the occupier's duty to check that the independent contractors are working safely
78
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
The more technical the work of an independent contractor, the less the occupier's duty to check their work is (icy step)
79
Haseldine v Daw
The more technical the work of an independent contractor, the less the occupier's duty to check their work is (faulty lift)
80
Robert Addie & Sons v Dumbreck
Occupiers do not owe trespassers any duty of care (trespassing child caught in machinery) - old law
81
Swain v Natui Ram Puri
It is insufficient to impose liability on an occupier if he ought to have known that a trespasser was in the vicinity of the danger but did not (factory roof)
82
Ashdown v Samuel Williams & Sons Ltd
Liability under the OLA may be excluded by a notice, so long as any visitor/trespasser was made reasonably aware of it, though they do not have to read or understand it
83
Ratcliffe v McConnell
The duty owed by an occupier to a trespasser may be discharged by giving warning of danger, and this warning does not have to make the trespasser reasonably safe (shallow pool)
84
Rigby v Northamptonshire County Council
You can be liable for trespass to land even if your body does not enter the land e.g. by throwing gas canisters onto someone else's land
85
Bocaro SA v Star Energy Onshore UK
You own the subsoil under your land, though this ownership ends at a certain depth (oil extraction)
86
Kelsen v Imperial Tobacco
You own the airspace above your land, so someone erecting an overhanging sign may be guilty of trespass to land
87
Anchor Brewhouse v Berkley House
You own the airspace above your land, so someone operating an overhanging crane may be guilty of trespass to land
88
League Against Cruel Sports v Scott
For trespass to land, the accused may have negligently entered the land e.g. by letting their animals escape onto the land
89
Southwark London Borough Council v Williams
For the defence of necessity to apply to trespass to land, there must be an urgent situation of immediate peril (homeless squatters)
90
Sturges v Brigman
“what would be a nuisance in Belgrave Square would not necessarily be so in Bermondsey”; one defence to private nuisance is that the nuisance has affected the claimant (not merely existed) for 20+ years (conservatory)
91
Adams v Ursell
It is no defence to private nuisance that the nuisance has social utility e.g. the running of a popular fish shop
92
Bliss v Hall
It is no defence to private nuisance that the claimant came to the nuisance (candle factory fumes)
93
Allen v Gulf Oil Refinery
One defence to private nuisance is that there is a statute authorising it as necessary (smell, noise, and sound from oil refinery)
94
Holbeck Hall Hotel v Scarborough BC
One defence to private nuisance is that the extent of the loss was unforeseeable (hotel on cliff)
95
Lambton v Mellish
It is not a defence to private nuisance that D was just one of a number of people causing the nuisance (two merry-go-rounds)
96
St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping
The courts are more likely to find private nuisance where there has been physical damage, rather than a mere interference with rights (trees damages by factory fumes)
97
Gillingham Borough Council v Medway Dock
Locality is assessed at the time that the case is brought, even if it has just changed (24-hour dock)
98
Andrea v Selfridges
What disruption is reasonable during the day may not be reasonable at night (building works)
99
Sedleigh-Denfield v O Callaghan
For something to be a nuisance, it must reoccur; you may sue the occupier of the land if they have adopted or continued the nuisance (religious commune)
100
Crown River Cruises v Kimbolton Fireworks
The requirement that a nuisance reoccur is less necessary for cases of physical damage (firework debris setting barge alight)
101
Coventry v Lawrence (No 2)
The landlord of a property in which nuisance emanates may be sued if they authorise or participate in the nuisance e.g. by letting a property to known nuisance-causers
102
Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd
Anyone with an interest in or exclusive possession of the land can claim for private nuisance (TV interference)
103
Brew Bros v Snax
The landlord of a property in which nuisance emanates may be sued if the nuisance arises from a physical defect in the property (tilting wall)
104
Robinson v Kilvert
A nuisance is only actionable if it would be a nuisance to the reasonable person of ordinary irritation (heat sensitive paper)
105
Page Motors v Epsom and Ewell
The court assesses whether the occupier has continued or adopted the nuisance with respect to their resources and abilities (council covering gypsy damage)
106
Christie v Davey
The court is more likely to find nuisance liability if the nuisance was created out of malice (banging on 'musical' family's walls)
107
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm v Emmett
The court is more likely to find nuisance liability if the nuisance was created out of malice (firing a shotgun to make fox eat its cubs)
108
Bradford Corp v Pickles
A party's right to do as they wish with their land may trump the courts tendency to hold against individuals who create a nuisance out of malice (creating well to make neighbours sell property)
109
Rickards v Lothian
For Rylands v Fletcher liability, D must voluntarily bring onto his land something likely to do mischief (blocked sink flooding)
110
Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
For Rylands v Fletcher liability, D must voluntarily bring onto his land something likely to do mischief (pipe defect flooding)
111
Read v J Lyons and Co Ltd
For Rylands v Fletcher liability, there must be an escape - a shell exploding is not an escape
112
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc
For Rylands v Fletcher liability, there must be a non-natural use of the thing likely to do mischief (e.g. chemicals) and damage of the relevant type must be foreseeable
113
R v Goldstein
For public nuisance, D must know/reasonably have known that his conduct would cause a public nuisance (anthrax scare)
114
Rylands v Fletcher
A distinct type of nuisance arises where there is an isolated escape of something likely to do mischief from D's land (flooded coal mine)
115
Ponting v Noakes
Contributory negligence may operate as a defence to Rylands v Fletcher (horse eating neighbouring tree)
116
Nichols v Marsland
Act of God may operate as a defence to Rylands v Fletcher (exceptionally heavy rainfall)
117
Box v Jubb
Unforeseeable act of a third party may operate as a defence to Rylands v Fletcher (third party emptying reservoir)
118
Green v Chelsea Waterworks
Statutory authority may operate as a defence to Rylands v Fletcher (high water pressure)
119
Sion v Hampstead Health Authority
A father who watched his son deteriorate in hospital over 14 days did not meet the sudden shock Alcock requirement
120
North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Walters
A mother who watched her son die over 36 hours of negligent treatment met the sudden shock Alcock requirement
121
Wild v Southend University Hospital
A father who witnessed a traumatic birth in which his child died and his wife almost died did not meet the sudden shock Alcock requirement - this was characterised as 'slow burn anxiety'
122
Liverpool Women's Hospital v Ronayne
A man who came to hospital to see his disfigured wife did not meet the Alcock requirement of shock
123
Piper Alpha disaster
A man who watched his workmates burn to death on an oil rig while he sailed away did not meet the close relationship Alcock requirement, or Lord Akner's exception of exceptionally horrific circumstances
124
Attia v British Gas Plc
You can claim for psychiatric illness following witnessing damage to property - old case, unlikely to be followed today
125
Monk v PC Harrington
A rescuer's belief that he was in physical danger was unreasonable, so he was categorised as a secondary victim
126
McLoughlin v O'Brian
A woman who visited his traumatised and seriously injured family in hospital 2 hours after a car crash met the proximity in time and space Alcock requirement
127
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police
The family members of those involved in the Hillsborough disaster had to meet the 'control mechanisms': direct perception, proximity of relationship, proximity in space and time, and sudden shock, which they did not
128
Galli-Atkinson v Seghal
A woman who cradled he child's body 2 hours after a car accident met the proximity in space and time Alcock requirement
129
Taylor v Novo
Daughter who witnessed her mother's death 3 weeks after the incident which caused her death did not meet the proximity in space and time Alcock requirement
130
Brice v Brown
For secondary victims, some psychiatric illness must be foreseeable, though it does not matter if the extent of the illness is unforeseeable
131
White v Chief Constable of the South Yorkshire Police
The police rescuers at the Hillsborough disaster did not qualify as primary victims as they were not in physical danger themselves, or could reasonably believe that they were
132
Chadwick v British Transport Commission
A train wreck rescuer was treated as a primary victim (later interpreted as being because he was in physical danger himself)
133
Page v Smith
A primary victim is anyone 'directly involved in the accident' and 'well within the range of foreseeable physical injury'; the claimant merely has to show that some (physical or psychiatric) injury was foreseeable; all 'personal injury' is of the same type
134
Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co
Plural plaques giving rise to the fear of future illness is not a recognised psychiatric illness
135
Hinz v Berry
The claimant must be suffering from a recognised psychiatric illness, not mere 'grief or sorrow... worry... financial strain... stress... or... difficulties'
136
Dulieu v White & Sons
A pregnant woman who witnessed a vehicle crash through the window of a pub in which she worked was compensated for psychiatric illness given that there was a threat to her personal safety; eggshell rule
137
Victorian Railways Commissioner v Coultas
A family involved in a near-miss train accident were not compensated for their consequent psychiatric illness (old law)
138
Hambrook v Stokes Bros
A woman who thought she heard her out of sight child get into an accident was compensated as there was a threat to the personal safety of the child
139
King v Phillips
A mother who watched her son's tricycle roll behind a moving taxi was not compensated for her resulting psychiatric illness (not following Hambrook)
140
Boardman v Sanderson
A father who witnessed his son get into a car crash was compensated for his resulting psychiatric illness (following Hambrook)
141
Henderson v Merrett Syndicated Ltd
When the Hedley Byrne principle is extended to the provision of services, there is no requirement to show that C reasonably relied on the service
142
Gorham v British Telecommunications
The Hedley Bryne principle may be extended to the negligent provision of services resulting in economic loss
143
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank Plc
"reliance in the law is usually taken to mean that if A had not relied on B he would have acted differently" - Lord Bingham
144
Steel v NRAM
You cannot reasonably foresee that someone on the other side of a transaction i.e. someone dealing with your client, will rely on your statements
145
Abbott v Strong
In Hedley Byrne liability, for C to have relied on the statement, they must have known that it was made by D
146
Mutual Life and Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt
For Hedley Byrne liability, the statement must be sought by a business person in the course of business
147
Spring v Guardian Assurance
For Hedley Byrne liability, a 'special relationship' exists between an employer and an employee seeking a reference
148
Hedley Byrne v Heller
C may recover for pure economic loss caused by a negligent misstatement (bank's negligent misstatement)
149
Candler v Crane Christmas & Co
C may not recover for pure economic loss caused by a negligent misstatement (old law)
150
Hemmens v Wilson-Brown
The will drafting exception does not extend to gifts between living people (affair money)
151
Walker v Geo H Medlicott & Son
The will drafting exception does not apply where C has not exhausted all of his other available remedies
152
Worby v Rosser
The will drafting exception does not extend to beneficiaries of a previous will
153
Ross v Caunters
The will drafting exception states that a solicitor has a duty to not cause economic loss to those he writes wills for (spouse witnessing signing)
154
D & F Estates v Church Commissioners
Economic loss resulting from a defective product (such as a poorly plastered wall) is not recoverable
155
Murphy v Brentwood
The key question when establishing a sufficient relationship between C and D is whether the relationship imposes a duty on D to protect C; you cannot recover for economic loss resulting from a defective product, but you can recover if that defect caused physical damage
156
Spartan Steel & Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co
Economic loss directly following a physical loss is recoverable, but pure, non-consequential economic loss is not (factory electricity cut)
157
Muirhead v Industrial Tank Specialities
Followed the distinction between consequential and pure economic loss established in Spartan Steel (lobster tank)
158
The Mineral Transporter case
For economic loss to be recoverable, C must have a proprietary (not merely contractual) interest in the damaged property
159
Weller v Foot and Mouth Disease Research Institute
For economic loss to be recoverable, the damage must be done to C's property e.g. NOT infected cattle which C intends to auction
160
West Bromwich Albion v El Safty
For economic loss to be recoverable, the damage must be done to C's property e.g. NOT a football player rather than the team
161
Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co Ltd
For economic loss to be recoverable, C must own the damaged goods (goods damaged before ownership)
162
Cattle v Stockton Waterworks
For economic loss to be recoverable, C must own the damaged goods e.g. NOT C losing work due to D damaging someone else's land
163
Greater Nottingham Cooperative Society v Cementation Pilling
Economic loss is not generally recoverable where this would violate the intentions of the parties e.g. where there is no contractual duty not to be negligent
164
Target v Torfaen BC
A landlord may be liable for economic caused by a defective product if that defect causes a tenant personal injury
165
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd
C recovered for economic loss caused by a product defect (a defective floor) - but this case has been confined to its specific facts due to the special relationship between the parties (not followed)
166
R v Fagan
An unintentional action may turn into an intentional battery (policeman's foot)
167
DPP v K
A direct action need not be physically or temporarily close (hand dryer acid)
168
Collins v Wilcock
Normal bodily contact you should expect to experience in everyday life has been excluded from liability under trespass to the person (police taking hold of woman's arm)
169
Coop v Pritchard
Contributory negligence/provocation are not available as defences to trespass to the person
170
Thomas v NUM
Assault must involve the threat of immediate force, which was not present in this case as minors were transported through protestors by police
171
R v Ireland
Words and silence are sufficient for an assault (breathing down phone)
172
Tuberville v Savage
Words may negate an assault e.g. "were it not assize time ..."
173
Bird v Jones
For an imprisonment to constitute a false imprisonment, it must be absolute i.e. there must be no way out of it (leaving stadium)
174
Robinson v Balmain Ferry
An imprisonment is not false if it is done under reasonable conditions e.g. requiring people to spend a penny to get through the turnstile in and out of a dock
175
Herd v Weardale Steel
An imprisonment is not false if it is done under reasonable conditions e.g. preventing an employee from existing work using a faulty lift
176
R v Brockhill Prison
A lawful arrest may become unlawful if the length of imprisonment changes (sentence according to Home Office but incompatible with case law)
177
Austin v UK
If police reasonably believe that detention would be for the greater good, it may be permissible (detaining protestors in train station)
178
Wilkinson v Downton
A woman suffered psychiatric injury after being told by a friend as a joke that her husband had been seriously injured. This is a new tort.
179
Wainwright v Home Office
The Wilkinson v Downton tort was applied to impose liability on the prison officers who conducted a humiliating strip search on a woman and her son
180
Rhodes v OPO
For Wilkinson v Downton liability, the defendant must have directed their conduct towards the claimant with the intention to cause physical harm or severe emotional distress (traumatic autobiography)
181
Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants
Vicarious liability test:
1. What is the relationship between D1 and D2?
2. Is the relationship connected to the tortious conduct?
If an employee is negligent while working for B under the main employment of A, you must independently consider the relationships between the employee and A and B
182
Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance
The economic reality test should be applied to determine whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor (lorry drivers)
183
JGE v Portsmouth Roman Catholic Diocesan Trust
Quasi-employees, such as priests under the Catholic Church, give rise to vicarious liability
184
Cox v Ministry of Justice
This case extended vicarious liability by holding a prison vicariously liable for its prisoners
185
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council
This case extended vicarious liability by holding a local authority vicariously liable for foster-carers within its population
186
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd
If an employee is negligent while working for B under the main employment of A, A is vicariously liable (old law)
187
Viasystems (Tyneside) v Thermal Transfer (Northern) Ltd
If an employee is negligent while working for B under the main employment of A, A and B are jointly vicariously liable (old law)
188
Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd
Sexual abuse was not in a school warden's 'course of employment' but Lord Steyn extended the test to one of 'close connection' between the tort and the employment
189
Century Insurance v Northern Ireland
Smoking a cigarette was deemed to be in a lorry driver's 'course of employment' (broad interpretation)
190
Smith v Stages
Driving home was deemed to be in an employee's 'course of employment' (broad interpretation)
191
Rose v Plenty
Though prohibited, getting someone else to deliver milk was deemed to be in a milkman's 'course of employment' (broad interpretation)
192
Mattis v Pollock
Stabbing a rude clubgoer was deemed to be in a bouncer's 'course of employment' (broad interpretation)
193
Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets
Ejecting a customer from a supermarket and racially abusing him was deemed to be in a kiosk attendant's 'course of employment' (VERY broad interpretation). New formulation of the 'close connection' test:
1. What was the nature of the tortfeasor's job
2. Was there a sufficient connection between the tortfeasor's conduct and his employment to hold the employer liable according to social justice?
194
Woodland v Essex County Council
A school owed a non-delegable duty to look after its pupils during swimming lessons run by an independent contractor; set out the test establishing non-delegable duties
195
Frederick v Positive Solutions
The extent of vicarious liability was restricted as an advisor's firm was not vicariously liable for the advisor's fraudulent advice
196
Worsley v Tambrands
By giving warnings of risks, a manufacturer may meet the requirement that 'the safety of the product is ... such as persons generally are entitled to expect' under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (toxic shock syndrome)
197
Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK)
An elastic fastening on a sleeping bag which stabbed a person in the eye did not meet the safety requirement in the Consumer Protection Act 1987
198
A v National Blood Authority
Even though the organisation was unable to detect the Hepatitis C in their blood, strict liability made this irrelevant and therefore the organisation in breach of the Consumer Protection Act 1987
199
B (A Child) v McDonald's
Scalding hot coffee was safe under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 as the public do not expect their coffee to be cool enough to spill on themselves safely
200
Tesco Stores v Pollard
A child resistant cap on dishwasher powder was sufficient to meet the product safety requirement under the Consumer Protection Act 1987
201
Smith v Bush
An exemption clause excluding liability for negligently conducted surveys of houses for prospective mortgagors was deemed unreasonable under the UCTA
202
Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Strongly critical of Caparo - tort is developed enough to generally work from precedent (police knocking over bystander during arrest)
203
Dryden v Johnson Matthey
Exposure to platinum salts which made the body sensitive to allergic reactions was amounted to damage, as some detriment was caused to the body
204
Cartledge v Jopling
Symptomless damage is still damage – so long as it can be proven to cause some deficit to the body
205
Cook v Swansea
Occupiers' cannot be expected to protect against all risks on their land, particularly where this would cause them some unreasonable detriment e.g. having to close the carpark or hire many more staff
206
Roe v Ministry of Health
If a risk is unforeseeable (e.g. the dangers of phenol) the defendant will not be liable
207
Brown v Rolls Royce Ltd
Failure to conform to common safety procedures is strong, but not conclusive, evidence of negligence - the claimant must prove that this failure caused their loss (barrier cream disease)
208
Haley v London Electricity Board
The reasonable person must tailor his conduct in light of the characteristics of the people who it is reasonably likely to affect (blind person)
209
Caldwell v Maguire
The fact that a sports competitor has broken the rules of the game does not necessarily entail that they have been negligent
210
Vowles v Evans
A referee may be liable in negligence for endangering sportsmen through poor decision-making, though a subjective as well as objective approach will be taken
211
Maynard v West Midlands Health Authority
A judge is not allowed to substitute their personal view of the correct course of treatment for the view of the body of medical professionals
212
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman
Australian case inspiring the departure from Anns in Caparo, holding that new types of negligence should be developed incrementally and by analogy with existing types, not according to a general principle
213
Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co Ltd v Minister of War Transport
Lord Wright: causation should be understood ‘as the man in the street […] would understand it’
214
McWilliams v Sir William Arrol Ltd
In applying the 'but for' test, the court may take into account hypotheticals e.g. the claimant would not have worn the harness had he been provided with it
215
Performance Cars v Abraham
Where there are consecutive causes, if the effect of D1’s action is continuing so that it is still a cause of the damage despite D2’s action, then D1 may be liable
216
Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals Ltd
The extent of the damages need not be foreseeable so long as the type was for liability (small vs large explosion)
217
Freeman v Home Office (No 2)
The burden is on the claimant to prove that they have not expressly or impliedly consented to trespass to the person
218
Titchener v British Railways Board
For the defence of consent, agreement is interpreted loosely
219
Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd
Taking a common-sense approach, the claimant’s actions must have contributed to the damage suffered for contributory negligence to apply
220
Tetley v Chitty
A local authority was liable in nuisance for letting some land to a go-kart club which would inevitably produce noise amounting to a nuisance for neighbours
221
Tarry v Ashton
This case, which has been followed, suggests that fault need not be proved for public nuisance involving projections over the highway
222
Corby Group Litigation Claimants v Corby BC
Damages for personal injury can only arise from public nuisance
223
AG v PYA Quarries
Public nuisance = any nuisance "which materially affects the reasonable comfort or convenience of life of a class of her majesty's subjects"
