Case Law Flashcards
Rose v plenty
Milkman took a young boy work despite being told not too, the young boy was injured as a result of the milkman’s driving.
Vicarious liability
Paris v stephney council
Special duty of care for vulnerable persons
Claimant only had one eye, while carrying out a task (hitting a bolt with a hammer) a piece of metal hit the claimant in his good eye causing blindness.
The court said his employer should have identified that’s the risks to him were increased and as such should have provided suitable eye protection
British rail v Herrington
Young buy was injured climbing onto an electrified rail, his access was via a damaged fence panel that was know of by the station master and as such should have been repaired.
Occupiers liability for trespassers
Caparo v dickman
More defined definition of who is owed a duty of care
Three stages
Proximity = were the two parties sufficiently proximate to each other
Reasonableness = is it fair and just to impose a duty
Reasonably foreseeable = the defendant should have reasonably foreseen the act or omission would cause harm.
Donahue v Stevenson
Common law duty of care - the neighbour principal.
Snail in a bottle, the basis is the manufacture should have a duty of care for his neighbor by this he means the person most connected to the negligence
Case law for
Safe plant and equipment
Safe premises
Reasonably r fellow employees
Wilson and Clyde coal covers all of these
Safe plant and equipment = Wilson and Clyde coal
Safe premises = also Latimer v AEC
Reasonably competent fellow employees = also Hudson v ridge manufacturing and or smith v crossly brothers
