tort_flashcards_set1
(10 cards)
What was the case of Joel v Morrison about?
A servant took a detour during his duties and negligently caused an accident, causing injury to another party. The detour was not explicitly authorized by the employer and raised questions about employer liability for employee actions during employment.
Employer liability distinguishes clearly between incidental deviations, which remain within the scope of employment, and substantial personal detours or frolics, which fall outside the employer’s responsibility.
What was established in Rylands v Fletcher?
Rylands constructed a reservoir on his land, but water escaped due to improper sealing, flooding Fletcher’s nearby coal mines, causing significant damage. The case hinged on whether Rylands was liable despite no intentional wrongdoing.
Established strict liability principle, holding landowners strictly liable when hazardous substances escape their land due to non-natural use, causing foreseeable damage.
What legal principle was established in Nichols v Marsland?
The defendant constructed artificial lakes which burst following an extraordinarily heavy rainfall, resulting in substantial damage downstream. The critical legal question was whether the defendant could be held liable despite the unpredictable natural event.
Established the ‘Act of God’ defence, excusing liability for damages resulting from unforeseeable and extraordinary natural events beyond human control.
What was the issue in St. Helen’s Smelting Co v Tipping?
Pollution from the defendant’s smelting operations caused substantial damage to the claimant’s trees, shrubs, and property. The area was industrial, raising questions of whether local character could justify nuisance.
Defined actionable nuisance as substantial interference with the enjoyment or use of property, irrespective of the area’s existing industrial character.
What principle was introduced in Donoghue v Stevenson?
Mrs. Donoghue consumed ginger beer purchased by her friend that was contaminated with a decomposed snail. This contamination made her seriously ill. The case fundamentally questioned whether manufacturers owed consumers a direct duty of care absent contractual privity.
Introduced the landmark neighbour principle, establishing manufacturers owe a duty of care directly to consumers based on reasonable foreseeability of harm, irrespective of contractual relationships.
What was the significance of Hazeldine v Daw?
A plaintiff was injured due to an elevator malfunction caused by negligent repair work performed by an independent contractor. This case tested whether occupiers were liable for the negligence of independent contractors performing tasks on their premises.
Extended occupiers’ liability to include a responsibility for ensuring contractors carry out their work safely and adequately.
What was the case of Century Insurance Co v NI Transport Board about?
An employee negligently threw a lit match while delivering petrol, causing an explosion and significant property damage. The legal issue revolved around whether employers could be held accountable for employees’ negligent actions committed during their employment.
Confirmed the principle that employers are vicariously liable for their employees’ negligent acts if committed within the course and scope of employment.
What was the focus of Bolton v Stone?
A claimant was injured by a cricket ball struck from an adjoining cricket field. This event was exceptionally rare, partly due to distance and protective measures already in place, such as high fencing. The case focused on the foreseeability and magnitude of the risk involved.
Clarified that liability in negligence cases depends significantly on the magnitude and foreseeability of risk; occurrences that are highly unlikely or rare generally do not attract liability.
What legal question was addressed in Paris v Stepney Borough Council?
A worker, already blind in one eye, lost sight in the other eye following an accident at work, where protective goggles were not provided. The question was whether the employer owed additional care due to the employee’s existing vulnerability.
Established that employers owe an increased duty of care and must take extra precautions to protect particularly vulnerable individuals.
What was the ruling in Latimer v AEC Ltd?
A factory worker slipped and was injured on a floor partially flooded by an accidental oil spill despite the employer taking reasonable precautions. The legal issue considered was the adequacy and reasonableness of the precautions taken.
Established that precautions must be reasonable, proportionate, and balance the level of risk against the practicality and feasibility of preventive measures.
