all cases sem 1

Question 1

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003]

Answer 1

Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003]: a tort law is about ‘cases which the law may justly hold one party liable to compensate another’

Question 2

Woodroffe-Hedly v Cuthberston [1997]

Answer 2

Because the defendant was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for why he used only one screw, he was found to be liable for the death of the plaintiff, who had fallen off the North Face after the one screw he was using became loose

Question 3

Coventry v Lawrence No 3 [2015]

Answer 3

↳On compatibility of access to justice act 1999 with right to fair trial of European convention on Human rights

Question 4

Caparo industries plc v Dickman

Answer 4

Question 5

Robinson v. Chief Constable of west Yorkshire police [2018],

Answer 5

Question 6

Pure psychiatric injury cases:
* Alcock v. Chief Constable of south Yorkshire police [1992]
* page v smith [1996]

Question 7

Darnley v. Croydon health service NHS trust

Question 8

Omissions case:
Smith V little woods

Answer 8

Question 9

Omissions case:
Stovin v wise [ 1996]

Answer 9

Question 10

Control cases:
* reeves v commissioner of police for the metropolis
[2000]
* orange v. Chief Constable of west Yorkshire police [2001]

Answer 10

Question 11

Assumption of responsibility cases :
* Barrett v. Ministry of defence [1995]

Answer 11

Question 12

Creating or adopting risks:
* Goldman v. Hargrave [1966]
* capital & counties plc v. Hampshire county council [1997]

Answer 12

Question 13

Where there is a special relationship between the defendant & the claimant cases:
* stansbie v. Troman [1948]
* p perl (exporters) Ltd v. Camden London Borough council
* palmer v tees health authority (1999)
* Poole Borough council v. GN (2019)
* hill chief Constable of west Yorkshire (1989)
* Osman v Ferguson (1993)
* Micheal v. Chief Constable of south wales police (2015)

Answer 13

Question 14

Special relationship between the defendant & the third party ( ie, control or supervision) case:
* home office v. Dorset yacht co. (1970)

Answer 14

Question 15

Third party execerbates a dangerous situation originally created by defendant case:
* Topp v. London country buses Ltd (1993)

Answer 15

Question 16

Failure to abate a known danger case:
* smith v. Little woods (1987)
* Clark fixing Ltd v. Dudley metropolitan Borough council (2001)

Answer 16

Question 17

Psychiatric harm:
* while v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire police (1998)

Answer 17

Question 18

Psychiatric harm [ diagnosed psychiatric condition]:
* Alcock v. Chief Constable of south Yorkshire police (1992)
* Vernon v. Bosley (NO1) ( 1994)

Answer 18

Question 19

Psychiatric harm [ sudden event or its immediate aftermath] cases:
* Sion v. Hampstead health authority (1994)
* Walter’s v. North Glamorgan NHS trust ( 2002)

Answer 19

Question 20

Psychiatric harm [ primary or secondary victims?) case:
* page v. Smith (1966)

Answer 20

Question 21

knightley v johns [1982]

operational liability cases (robinson v chief constable of west yorkshir

Answer 21

↳knightley v johns [1982]: accident at end of tunnel, officer ordered colleagues to ride the wrong way through the tunnel without first closing the other end, one of them hit by incoming car (driver hadn’t been negligent) officer was held liable

Question 22

rigby v chief constable of northamptonshire [1985]:

operational liability case

Answer 22

used flammable CS to flush a suspect out of a building; fire and damage; held liable because omitted take usualy precautions

Question 23

hill v chief constable of W Yorkshire [1989]:

police have strong immunity on policy reasons (case)

Answer 23

woman killed by serial killer
* police had been looking for him for years
* HoL held that police had been negligent but applied two stage test of Anns to determine whether DoC was owed
* held wasn’t owed because there wasn’t relationship of contril between police and killer, or proximity of the police to the victim
* used policy considerations
* Lord Template added that trials are not the appropriate venue for supervsing the efficency of the police; internal or public inquires are
* decison followed in osman v ferguson [1993]

Question 24

osman v ferguson[1993]

Answer 24

↳teacher was obessed with student
↳harassed family and was violent
↳police was aware but teacher seriously wounded the student and killed his father
↳held that there was a high degree of proximity but used hill to hold no liability on policy grounds
* led to Osman v UK [1999]
↳claimed that judegment was against art 6 ECHR (right of acess to courts)
↳held agreed and awarded compensation

• but see swinney v chief constable northumbria [1997]

Question 25

swinney v chief constable northumbria [1997]

Answer 25

↳informer's name and details left in police car ↳alleged criminal got in possession of it ↳informers suffered intimidation and psychological injury ↳had to move house and sued police for failure to keep information confidential ↳CoA held that there was DoC, proximity, and forseeability and case would continue ↳ **held** not liable because car had been locked

Question 26

An Informer v A Chief Constable [2012] | police having strong immunity case

Answer 26

↳police suspected informer was laundering money and obtained order to prohibit him frim accessing his bank accounts ↳claimant suffered severe finacial loss ↳**held**: police owed DoC towrds physical but not finacial saftey

Question 27

# breach of DoC- question of law Blyth v Brimingham Co [1856]

Answer 27

'negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon considerations which ordrinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would do'

Question 28

# breach of DoC- question of law Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943]

Answer 28

**Lord Macmillan**: 'the standard of foresight of the reasonable man is ine sense an **impersonal test**... some persons are by nature unduly timorous and imagine every path beset with lions; others, of more robust temperment, fail to forsee or nonchalantly disregard even the most obvious dangers. **the reasonable man is presumed to be free both from over-apprehension and from over confidence... but... its application a subject element. it is left to the judge to decide what, in the circumsatances of the particular case, the reasonable man would have in contemplating**, and what, accordingly, the party sought to be made liable ought to have forseen.'

Question 29

# Breach of DoC- question of law Nettleship v Weston [1971]

Answer 29

all drivers, including those who are learnig to drive, are held to the same standards

Question 30

# Breach of DoC- question of law Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980]

Answer 30

↳defendant unknowingly suffered stroke before driving into town. ↳ there were some symptoms and was aware that something was not right. ↳defence based on automatism ↳**held**: liable as standard of reasonable driver is objective

Question 31

# breach of DoC- question of law (knowledge) Roe v Ministry of health [1954]

Answer 31

↳in 1947, plaintiff suffered paralysis due to the contamination of an anaesthetic through invisible cracks in its glass ampoule ↳risk only became known in 1951 ↳**held**: defendants not liable

Question 32

# Breach of DoC- question of law Paris v stepney borough council [1951]

Answer 32

- specific knowledge possesed by the defendant cannot be discounted ↳ plaintiff employed by defendant local council ↳defendant didn't give safety goggle to plaintiff because it wasn't good practice back then ↳but they knew plaintiff only has the use of one eye ↳**held**: defendant liable

Question 33

# Breach of DoC- question of law (exceptions to RP standard) Mchale v Watson [1966] australian case

Answer 33

standard to be applied is that of **capacity- i.e. foresight and prudence which are normal for a child of that age** ↳applied in *Mullin v Richards* [1998] to hold that there was no breach of duty ↳see also *Orchard v lee* [2009]

Question 34

# breach of DoC- question of law (exceptions- illness) Manstfield v Weetabix Ltd [1998]

Answer 34

↳lorry driver didn't know he has glucose deficiency and slowly became unconsious while driving ↳trial judge said liable ↳CoA held no liability as driver couldn't know about his condition

Question 35

# Breach of DoC- question of law (exception- lack of rational control is n Dunnage v Randall [2015]

Answer 35

↳plaintiff suffered serious burns while preventing his uncle from setting fire to himself ↳uncle was schizophrenic ↳ incident potentially covered by uncles household insurance policy but CoA rejected argument that uncles lacked any control (no exception here)

Question 36

# Breach of DoC- question of law (skills) Phillips v williams whitely [1938]

Answer 36

↳ear piercing by professionals ↳plaintiff developed infection ↳**held**: not liable because attained to the required standard of care

Question 37

# breach of DoC- question of law (skills) wells v cooper [1958]

Answer 37

↳visitor pulled door and fell because door handle broke ↳handle fixed by defendant occupier ↳**held**: that standard to be applied was reasonable carpenter (rather than professional) not liable

Question 38

# Breach of DoC- question of law (skills) wilsher v essex HA [1958]

Answer 38

↳ child born prematurely ↳needed care in special baby unit ↳given too much oxygen and nearly blind ↳**held**: that standard of care is contexual (different types of doctors) and it was impossible to establish that defendant's conduct caused, or materially contributed to the injury (**causation**)

Question 39

# breach of DoC- question of law (skills) FB v Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust [2017]

Answer 39

↳young child brough by parents to A&E ↳suffered from symptoms which later transpired were early signs of meningitis ↳signs missed by senior house office ↳child sustained brain damage and deafness as a result ↳CoA **held** lable

Question 40

# breach of DoC- question of law (special standards) wooldridge v summer [1963]

Answer 40

↳phographer who stood at the edge of a track was injured when rider lost control of his horse ↳**held**: not liable because duty is not to act recklessly, and momentary lapse of judgement doesn't amount to liability

Question 41

# breach of DoC- question of law (professional) Bolam v Friern Hospital Management committee [1957]

Answer 41

↳plaintiff suffered pelvic fracture when given electro-convulsive treatment without muscle relaxant ↳ **McNair J**: '**Test** is the **standard of an ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill**' ↳enough for defendant to show they acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical men skilled in that particular art (contraty opinion irrelevant)

Question 42

# breach of DoC- question of law (professional) Moy v Pettmann Smith [2005]

Answer 42

↳barrister was sued because of allegedly wrong advise ↳**held**: not liable because no evidence or authority had been given that reasonable barrister would have done otherwise

Question 43

# breach of DoC- question of law (professional) Bolitho v City and Hackney HA [1998]

Answer 43

↳court will give priority to view which has (more) logical basis (takes time before new view is accepted and practised)

Question 44

# breach of DoC- question of law (professional) Ryan v East London & City HA (2001)

Answer 44

↳extended *Bolam & Bolitho* to diagnosis ↳benign tumor was diagnosed as malignant, and boy suffered excessive and unnecessary surgery ↳**held** liable

Question 45

# breach of DoC- question of law (professional) Sidaway v Board of Governors of Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985]

Answer 45

↳neurosurgen recommended spinal operation but neglected to tell plaintiff that it carried spinal damage in 1-2% cases even if performed competently ↳patient sustained paralysis as a result ↳patient sued the hospital for **vicarious liability** ↳applied **Bolam test** and held doctor not breached DoC ↳Expert evidenec was that non-disclosure would have been the practice of a responsible body of neurosurgeons **note**: court also said that 'in cases involving a failure to warn of sunstantial risk of grave adverse consequences' 'a judge might... come to the [opposite] conclusion'

Question 46

# breach of DoC- question of law (professional) Montgomery v Lanarkshire health board (2015)

Answer 46

↳seven-member supreme court departed from *sidaway* ↳pregnant woamn was diabetic and under consultant obstetrician for complications ↳pne of which was shoulder dystocia, in which natural birth is impeded when the baby is too large to fit through the mothers pelvis ↳chance of this occurring in this case was 9-10% ↳obstetrician didn't inform woman of the risk ↳baby was born but suffered severe diabilities due to deprivation of oxygen ↳argued that if she had been informed, she would have chosen caesarean delivery and damages would have been avoided ↳SC **unanimously held** that claimant has **right to make thier own descision** and to be given **sufficent information** to do so

Question 47

# breach of DoC- question of law (risk- economic approach) Bolton v Stone [1951]

Answer 47

↳defendant hit by cricket ball over the fence if a cricket ground ↳only five times time iver 30 years old ↳HoL held not liable

Question 48

# breach of DoC- question of law (risk- economic approach) watt v hertfordshire cc [1954]

Answer 48

↳car accident and woman trapped in car ↳firemen's only vehicle available for saving her couldn't secure the lifting decice it was carrying ↳another fireman got injured during extraction ↳**held**: not liability because purpose was to save a life (different if commercial)

Question 49

# breach of DoC- question of law (economic approach) Latimer v AEC [1953]

Answer 49

↳defendant's factory flooded with oil and water ↳defendant spread sawdust but plaintiff fell anyway ↳**held** no liable because acted reasonably

Question 50

# Breach of DoC- question of law (economic approach) Buck & others v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2006]

Answer 50

↳six nurses assaulted by patient they were looking after ↳court considered NHS regulations and standards of practice ↳**held** NHS Trust liable because did nit undertake proper risk assessment beforehand

Question 51

# Breach of DoC- question of law (cost of running and avoiding the avoidin The Wagon Mound (No. 2) [1967]

Answer 51

↳ships chief engineer carelessly allowed fuel oil to be spilled from his vessel while in harbour ↳oil in water and reached wharf where ships were moored ↳whards owners were carrying out welding work and sparks and bits of hot metal were flying into the water ↳supervisor ordered works to be stopped until decided it was safe to proceed ↳two days later sparks caused fire and extensive damage to wharf and two ships **cost of running risk: oil soilled over considerable amount of time; reasonable (vigilant) engineer would have noticed it** (speculation) **cost of avoiding risk**: no justification at all for spilling oil; **lord reid: 'if a real risk is one which would occur to the mind of a reasonable man in the position of the defendants servant and which he would not brush aside as far-fetched**, and if the criterion is to be what that **reasonable man would have done** in the circumstances, then surely he would not neglect such a risk if action to eliminate it presented no difficulty, involved no disadvantage, and required no expense.

Question 52

# Breach of DoC- question of law (compensation) Lowden v Jump Zone Leisure [2015]

Answer 52

↳small attraction in brighton in which customers were flung into the air by elastic roped attached to their harness ↳operator failed to ask claimant if he was ready before launching the jump ↳calimant suffered serious neck injury ↳**held** liable because companys own risk assessment and guidelines recognised that to wait until customers confirm they're ready was reasonable practice

Question 53

# breach of DoC- question of fact (the accident must be of the kind which Scott v London & St Katherines Dock Co [1865]

Answer 53

trains colliding / surgeon removing wrong kideny

Question 54

# breach of DoC- question of fact (cause of accident must have been under Gee v Metropolitan Railway Co [1873]

Answer 54

↳door of train flew open a few times after leaving station ↳plaintiff fell out ↳**held** liable because doors are the sole responsability of the train company

Question 55

# Breach of DoC- question of fact (cause of accident must have been under Easson v London & North eastern railway Co [1944]

Answer 55

↳similar accident but near the end of journey ↳**held** not liable because too many opportunities for others to tamper with the doors

Question 56

# Breach of DoC- question of law (no explanation of the cause of the accid Barkway v South wales transport Co Ltd [1950]

Answer 56

↳passenger on bus injured in crash due to a burst tyre ↳**held** liable because it would have not occured if adopted proper system of tyre inspection - consequence: allows court to infer that defendant has been negligent (but only of lack of evidence from defendant)

Question 57

# Breach of DoC- question of fact ward v Tesco stores [1975]

Answer 57

↳yoghurt on the floor ↳plaintiff slipped and suffered injuries ↳res ipsa loquitur applied ↳**held**liable because floor was responsability of defendants, there was no evidence how the yoghurt came to be on the floor and would noy have happened if care had been taken **Megan LJ**: 'it is for the **plaintiff to show that there has occurred an event which is unusual and which, in the absence of explanation, is more consistent with fault** on the part of the defendants that the absence of fault; and to my mind **the judge was right** in taking that view of the presence if this slippery liquid on the floor of the supermarket in the circumstances of this case: that is, that **the defendants knew or should have known that it was a not uncommon occurrence; and that if it should happen, and should not be promply attended to, it created a serious risk** that customers would fall and injure themselves. ... 'when the plaintiff has established that, the **defendants** can still escape from liability. they **could escape from liability if they could show that the accident must have happened, even if there has been in existence a proper and adequate system, in relation to the circumstances, to provide for the saftey of customers. but if the defendants wish to put forwards such a case, it is for them to show that, on balance of probability, either by evidence or by inference from the evidence that is given or is not given, this accident would have been at least equally likely to habe happened** despite a proper system desgined too give reasonable protection to customers. that, **in this case, they would wholly failed to do**'

Question 58

# Breach of DoC- question of fact George v Eagle Air service [2009]

Answer 58

↳planes do not normally crash and defendants had control over the aircraft ↳ defendant also failed to give explanation consistenet with absence of fault on their part