Tort Law Cases Flashcards
(129 cards)
1
Q
Donoghue V Stevenson
Negligence
A
Snail in drink did not purchase but still had duty of care from the shop it was bought from
Duty of Care
2
Q
Kent V Griffiths
Negligence
A
Called an ambulance and it took 38 minutes to arrive. Patient died
Duty
Foreseability
3
Q
Negligence
Jolley V Sutton
A
Derelict boat was left. Two teenage boys came over it and over several visits tried to move it. It fell on one of the boys leaving him disabled
4
Q
Bourhill V Young
Negligence
A
Motorbike crashed into a car 50 Feet away from a pregnant lady she did not see the crash happen but saw the aftermath of it she claimed shock
Duty
Proximity
5
Q
Hill V Chief constable of west Yorkshire
Negligence
A
A Criminal had killed a young women and had allegedly committed similar crimes against other females
Duty
Fair, Just and reasonable
6
Q
Blyth V Birmingham waterworks
Negligence
A
Laid pipes to the best standards. However the frost due to the winter made one of them burst. Not Negligent
Breach
Objective reasonable man standard
7
Q
Negligence
Wells V Cooper
Special characteristics of D
A
Man fitted a door. There was a high wind and door was hard to close. Handle came lose and Claimant fell down stairs. D met standard of carpenter
8
Q
Nettleship V Weston
Negligence
A
Learner driver crashed. Did not meet the standard of a reasonable driver
Breach
Special characteristics of defendant
9
Q
Paris V Stepney borough council
Negligence
A
Did not take extra care by providing googles for their one eyed mechanic.
Breach
Special characteristics of claimant
10
Q
Negligence- Special Charcteristics
Walker V Northumberland council
A
Social worker was made to much more work than he could cope with. He then gained a stress related illness and they did little to improve things
11
Q
Bolton V Stone
Negligence
A
For the first time in 6 Years a ball had been hit past the fence that was erected and hit a person standing outside the grounds
Breach
Have all pratical precautions been taken
12
Q
Hayley V London electrical Bond
Negligence
A
Blind man missed the sign that there was an open manhole and fell into it
Breach
13
Q
Laitmer V AEC
Negligence
A
Factory flooded after heavy rain. Warning sings were put up and messages were passed around the workforce sand and sawdust was used. However Claimant still slipped and was injured
Breach
14
Q
Watt V Hertfordshire
Negligence
A
Firefighters were injured whilst travelling to an accident. Vehicle was not equipped to take it. No Breach as they were already attending an accident.
Breach
15
Q
Roe V Minister of Health
Negligence
A
Anaesthetic got contaminated when glass container containing invisible cracks allowed antiseptic to seep through. Led to C being paralysed.
Breach
16
Q
Day V High Performance Sports
A
Fell while climbing on an indoor wall> She discovred that she was not tied in properly . Fell and suffered brain damage. Centre had reached the standard of the reasonably competent.
17
Q
Damage - Causation
Barnett V Chelsea and kensignton Hospital
A
Men had drank tea and went to the nurse. Nurse had told them to go home. The doctor did not exam the men. Men died. They would have died even of they were examined. If conseqeunce would still occur the test would not be met
18
Q
Fairchild V Glenhaven funeral services
A
Mutiple causes must prove that material contribution was from D’s breach
19
Q
Smith V Littlewood
A
Vandals broke into building that was to be demolished and damaged near by property. Novus Actus Intervenis as D did not know of this act
20
Q
Negligence- Damages
The Wagon Mound
A
D spilt some oil it spread over the water to C’s wharf were a welding was going on it caught light and wharf was damged by the fire. Damage from oil forseaable but damage from fire was not
21
Q
Negligence
Bradford V Robinson Rentals
Remoteness of damage
A
The weather was very cold. Windscreen kept freezing so had to leave windows open. Van had no heater. Foresable that he may suffer injury although not frostbite
22
Q
Hughes V Lord Advoctae
A
Two boys took a lamp down man hole as as they left it was knocked causing an explosion. Risk of burning was foresablee
23
Q
Doughty V Turner Asbestos
A
Chemical reaction caused an explosion that was not known of at that time was not forseeable
24
Q
Smith V Leech Brain
A
Small splash of Molten metal triggered his pre exisiting condition debeloped cancer( Thin Skull rule )
25
# Remedies
West V Shepherd
Suffered severe head injury could not speak. Loss of amenity
26
Sayers V Harlow Urban District Council
25% Reduction
27
Stermer V Lawson
Borrowed D's motorbike. But did not know the precise risk involved
28
# Defences- Consent
Smith V Baker
A worker complained about rocks being passed over his head later rocks hit his head. He had no other choice but to accept the risk
29
# Defences- Consent
Haynes V Harwood
D did not correctly tie his horse the police man was injured. He did not voluntarily accept the risk
30
Wheat V Lacon
Possession does not need to be exclusive
31
# OLA 1957-1984
Revil V Newbury
| S.1(3)
Occupier of an allotment shed. Premises
32
Invitee
Express permission and have been invited
33
# OLA 1957
Licensee
Express or implied permission to be there for a certain period of time
34
# OLA 1957
Statutory right of entry
Read a meter or police with a warrant
35
Contractual duty
Ticket holder for an event
36
# OLA 1957
Roles V Nathan
| Breach
Two chimney sweeps died of carbon monoxide poisoning. They would have known of the risks
37
# Negligence
Moloney V Lambeth London BC
| Breach- Standard of care
A 4yr old slipped through bannisters in a block of flats. Higher duty of care
38
# Negligence- Novus Actus
Lamb V Camden LBC
| Damage
3rd party act can break chain
39
# Negligence- Nouvs Actus
McKew V Holland
Victims own act broke the chain of caustion
40
# OLA- Independent Contractor
Haseldine V Daw & Son
Maintaining a lift is a highly specialised and therefore been given to a specialist
41
# OLA- Defences
Geary V JD Weatherspoon
Customer slid down bannister and fell on marble fall. Knew of risk
| Consent
42
Bottomley V Todmorden Cricket club
Did not undertake checks of the contractors
43
# OLA 1957
Ashdown V Samuel Williams
| Excluding Liablity
The sign said do at your own risk
44
# OLA
Keown V Coventry NHS
D climbed up fire escape. There was nothing dangerous of state of the premises. Came from D's actions.
45
# OLA 1984
Higgs V Foster
| Duty
Had no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser. Policeman fell into an uncovered inspection pit.
46
# OLA- Defences
Westwood V Post Office
A warning sign was sufficient for an adult
47
Tomlinson V Congleton
Council owned lake they already had warning signs. However they were being ignored. Could not yet build fence due to lack of funds. Danger arose from D's own actions. Trespasser ran the risk himself
48
# OLA 1984
Ratcliff V Mconnell
| Consent - Defence
No liability as the claimant was well aware of the risk of diving into a swimming pool. Accepted the risk.
49
# Psychatric harm
Reilly V Merseyside
Can not claim for claustrophobia and anxiety after being trapped in lift
50
# Psychatric harm
Page V Smith
Traffic accident triggered ME in someone who had previously suffered from it
51
# Psychatric Harm
Donachie V CC of Greater Manchester
The man was harmed by the police forces negligence.
52
# Psyschatric Harm
White V CC of South Yorkshire
| Primary Victim
The policemen witnessed people die at the football stadium
53
# Psychiatric Harm
W V Essex council
Parents of children abused by they child they fostered . They were told that he was not a known sex offender
54
# Psychiatric Harm
Attia V British Gas
House burnt down due to British Gas negligence . Home owner witnessed house being burned down
55
# Psychiatric Harm
Mcloughlin V O'Brian
Was there in the immediate aftermath. Child and Husband in car crash.
56
# Damage
Barnett V Chelsea
On the balance of probabilities
| The conseqeunces would have still occured without the D's negligence
57
# Damage (caustion) Mutiple causes
Fairchild V Glenhaven Funeral Services
Lung Cancer from abestos. Where there are mutiple causes. C must prove the D's breach caused the harm or made a material contribution.
58
# Damage (Caustion) Novus Actus Interveniens
Smith V Littlewoods
Vandals broke in and set a fire on a building which affected other buildings. D did not know of previous attempts to start a fire. Therefore it was not reasoanbly foreseeable
59
# Remoteness of damage
The Wagon Mound
D spilt some oil. The oil spread and started a fire. D could not have known that the oil could be set on fire while in water
60
# Remoteness of damage
Bradford V Robisnon Rentals
D required the C to drive. The weather was very cold. The windscreen kept freezing so he had leave the window open. Suffered frostbite
| Forseeable that he may suffer some form of injury
61
# Remoteness of damage
Hughes V Lord Advocate
Two boys took a lamp down a manhole. It was knocked and caused an explosion damaging one of the boys. The risk of burning was forseeable even though highley unlikely
62
# Damage(Caustion) Thin skull rule
Smith V Leech Brain
C received a very minor burn however it triggered his pre-exisiting cancerous condition
63
# Defences (Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)
Stermer V Lawson
C borrowed the D's motorbike. The defence failed beacause the C had not been properly been shown how to use a motorbike
64
# Defences (Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)
Smith V Baker
The defence will not work if C has no choice but to accept the risk. Worker was injuired when rocks were moved above his head and fell on him
65
# Defences(Consent- Volenti non fit injuria)
Hayes V Harwood
Where C is under a duty to accept the risk then he is not acceptingt the risk voluntarily. Policeman was trying to restrain a horse that was thethred incorrectly.
66
S.2(1) OlA 1957
Occupier owes a duty of care to all lawful visitors
67
S.2(2) OLA 1957
The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.
68
# OLA 1957
Wheat V Lacon
This shows who the occupier is
69
S.1(3) OLA 1957
Any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft
70
# OLA 1957
Revill V Newbury
Defines what a premises is
71
# OLA 1957
Laverton V Kiapasha
The owners had done what was reaosnable
| Premises does not need to be completly safe
72
# OLA 1957
Woollin V British Celanese
D was liable as although it had put up a warning sign regarding the dangerous roof it was behind a door and so not easily visible to anyone working in the area.
73
S2(3)b OLA 1957
A specialist should be able to protect themselves against risks within their own specialism. Therefore the occupier may take fewer precautions to protect them
74
# OLA 1957
Roles V Nathan
Two chimney sweeps died of carbon Monoxide poisoning. The claim failed as they had been warned of the risk and it should have been one with which they were familiar and known how to have dealt with
| S2(3)b
75
# OLA 1957
Moloney v Lambeth London BC
A 4 yr old slipped through the bannisters in a block of flats. D was liable as it was not a defence to say the gap in the railings would prevent an adult falling through.
76
# OLA 1957
Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government
Natural event can break the chain of causation.
| Inteverning causes
77
# OLA 1957
Lamb v Camden LBC
3rd party acts can break chain
| Inteverning causes
78
# OLA 1957
McKew v Holland
Victims own act – can break chain if not “reasonable”
| Inteverning causes
79
# OlA 1957
Haseldine v Daw & Son
| Independent contractors
Maintaining a lift was highly specialised and therefore reasonable to give to a specialist.
| it must be reasonable to give the work to an independent contractor.
80
# OlA 1957
Bottomley v Todmorden Cricket Club
| Independent contractors
Club were liable for actions of their contractors as they did not undertake checks.
| contractor must be competent (and the occupier should check)
81
# OlA 1957
Woodward v Mayor of Hastings
| Independent contractors
Occupier must take reasonable steps to check the work
82
# OlA 1957
Geary v JD Weatherspoon
| Consent
A customer in Ds bar attempted to slide down a bannister but fell onto a marble floor 4 metres below. Her claim failed as she was aware of the risk and willingly took it.
83
# OLA 1957
Ashdown v Samuel Williams ltd
| Excluding liability
Claim failed as clear signs said people using a shortcut did so at their own risk.
84
S1(1) OLA 1984
Than his visitors in respect of any risk of their suffering injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them
85
S1(3) OLA 1984
(a) he is aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists;
(b) he knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the other is in the vicinity
of the danger concerned or that he may come into the vicinity of the danger
(c) the risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case, he may
reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection.
86
# OLA 1984
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
The test of whether a duty of care exists under s.1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984 must be determined having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time of the alleged breach resulted in injury to the claimant. At the time Mr Donoghue sustained his injury, Folkestone Properties had no reason to believe that he or anyone else would be swimming from the slipway. Consequently, the criteria set out in s.1(3)(b) was not satisfied and no duty of care arose.
87
# OLA 1984
Keown v Coventry NHS
D injured climbing up a hospital fire escape.
Not liable as nothing inherently dangerous about the state of the premises. The danger came from D’s own misjudged actions.
88
# OLA 1984
Higgs v Foster
D not liable if he or she has no reason to suspect the presence of a trespasser. A policeman fell into an uncovered inspection pit. He had entered the premises for surveillance but was deemed a trespasser.
89
# OLA 1984
Westwood v Post office
A warning sign was sufficient for an adult.
90
# OlA 1984
Ratcliff V Mconnell
No liability as the claimant was aware of the risk of diving into a swimmming pool.
91
# Psychiatric harm
Page V Smith
Traffic accident triggered ME in someone who had previously suffered from it.
| Does not have to be an accident
92
# Psychiatric harm
Donachie V CC of Greater Manchester
The policeman was harmed by the police forces negligence.
93
# Psychiatric harm
White V CC of South Yorkshire
The police officers were there when fans from a football game was squashed toghether and they helped in the rescue
94
# Psychiatric harm
Sion V Hampstead Health Authority
Watching son die in hospital over a number of days was not sudden
95
# Psychiatric harm
Walters
Babies death was sudden and was an single event
96
# Psychiatric harm
Greatorex V Greatoux
D was badly injuired caused by his own negligent driving . His father was his rescurer (was a firefighter) suffered Psychiatric harm
## Footnote
Failed as D had no duty to loo after himself in case it caused distress to others
97
W V Essex council
Parents of children abused by a child they fostered could claim against the council
98
# Psychiatric harm
Dooley V Cammel Laird
A person who thinks they have killed people through their act when in fact they died through the negligence of another
## Footnote
Can claim for Psychiatric harm
99
# Psychiatric harm
Attia V British Gas
House burnt down due to british Gas negligence. Home owner witnessed property burn
100
# Psychiatric harm
McLoughlin V O'Brain
They also included immediate aftermath as close to accident in time and space
101
# Vicarious liabilty
Walker V Crystal Palace FC
A footballer was deemed to be an employee due to the level of control the club had over training schedules.
102
# Vicarious Liability
Ready Mix concrete
Case for the Mutiple test
103
# Vicarious Liability
Beard V London Genral Omnibus
The conductor of the bus turned it around and injuried an member of public while doing so
| Act was not authorsied. Employer not liable
104
# Vicarious Liabilty
Harvey V RG O'Dell
A repair man was sent on a day long job and on his way bavk from lunch he caused an accident.
| Liable as day long job would require the employee to travel to get lunch
105
# Vicarious Liabilty
Century Insurance V Northen Ireland Road Transport Board
Petrol tanker was making and delivery and started smoking causing tank to blow
| Employer Liable
106
# Vicarious Liablity
Limpus V London General Omnibus
| Expressly forbidden method
Compnay had told drivers not to race buses from other companies but they did so casing an accidnet
| The employer was still held liable
107
# Vicarious liabilty
Lister V Hesley Hall
| An act so closely conneceted to the employment
A warden at a care home sexually abused a number of boys in his care
| Employer was liable
108
# Vicarious liabilty
Conway V Wimpey.
Not Liable as it was an unauthorised act and not part of his job
109
# Vicarious liabilty
Rose V Plently
Instruction not to employ children as an milkman. One milkman did and a child got injuired. Liable as it was an authorised act but unauthorised method
110
# Private nuisnace
Hunter V Canary wharf
Many claimants said that the buildings had affected the Tv reception. This included owners, tenants and children with parents
| Who can be an claimant
111
# Private nusinace
Sedleigh-Denfeild V O'Callaghan
A tresspasser installed a pipe in a ditch on the C's land. The D was liable when it became blocked and flooded the C's land as he knew it had existed
112
# Private Nuisance
Tetley V Chitty
Landlord can be liable for actions of tenant if he authorised or approved of activity.
113
# Private Nuisance
Fearn V Tate gallery
Public could veiw their houses due to windows
| Visual intrusion could amount to actionable nuisance
114
# Private Nuisance-Locality
Halsey V Esso
Oil company liable as they would deliver 24/7 in housing estate
115
# Private Nuisance-Locality
St Helens smelting V Tipping
Fumes damaged trees. Location is irrelevant if physical damage is caused
116
# Private Nuisance-Duration
Barr V Biffa
Key factor as it had been occuring on and off for five years
117
# Private Nuisance-Duration
Crown V Kimbolton
One off event can be a nuisance. Burning debris from the fireworks damaged river boats
118
# Private Nuisance- Sensitivity
Bridlington Relay V Yorkshire Electrical
Claimed his Tv mast was being interfred with by the D's power lines. Court dismissed the claim as the power cables would not have interefed with any ordinary user of the land.
119
# Private Nuisance
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm V Emmet
Deeemed unlawful as it would have freightened the animals casuing a miscarage
120
# Nuisance-Under Rylands
Giles V Walker
Ploughed land which had been self soen with thistles. Not Liable
121
# Nuisance-Under Rylands
Rickards V Lothian
A tap overlfowed in a part of the building leased by the D. Water escaped caused damage. D not liable
121
# Nuisance-Under Rylands
Hale V Jennings
Was a chair from a 'chair-o-plane' in a fairground attraction
| A dangerous thing
121
# Nuisance-Under Rylands- Defence
Perry V Kendricks
D left bus having empty tank of petrol. Stranger removed the petrol cap and anothe child threw an match into a tank.
| Act of stranger
122
# Nuisance-Under Rylands-Defence
Nicols V Marshland
D was not liable after water had escpaed from an artifical lake following a prolonged violent storm.
| Act of God
123
# Nuisance-Under Rylands-Defence
Green V Chelsea
D was not liable when one of the water pipes burst. D had statutory duty to maintain it pipes and given it was not negligent D was not liable
| Statutory Authority
124
# Economic Loss
Spartan Steel V Martin and Co.
An eletrical power cable outside C's Factory was negligently cut by D. This led to loss of power for sereval hours. The melt in the furnance at the time had to be destroyed to stop it solidifying in the furnance and wrecking it.
125
# Economic Loss
Hedley Bryne V Heller
An advertising company relied on the reference given from the clients bank when allowing the advertisers to place adverts (on credit). The firm went bust and Hedley sued bank for negligent misstatement. Held Liable
| Statement was made negligently
Special relationship between parties
126
# Economic Loss
Raja V Gray
Was not sufficent proximity
| Reasonable reliance
127
# Economic Loss
Chaudry V Prabhaker
Social situation can create an special realationship
| Reasonable reliance
