Case Law (Cases to Reference) Flashcards
What is the Case Donoghue v Stevenson (1936) about?
Mrs Donoghue drank ginger beer with a decomposed snail inside that her friend had purchased from a cafe, whom had purchased the ginger beer from Mr Stevenson. Mrs Donoghue then became ill.
In Donoghue v Stevenson (1936) what did the court decide?
Although there was no contract between Mrs Donoghue and Mr Stevenson the courts decided that Mr Stevenson owed Mrs Donoghue a duty of care when producing their product. Held 3/5 majority. 2/5 was due to the floodgate argument.
What was the ratio of Donoghue v Stevenson (1936)?
Manufacturer of a product has a legal duty to the consumer to take reasonable care that the product is free from defect likely to cause injury.
What was the ratio of Donoghue v Stevenson changed to?
A person owes duty of care to those who he or she can reasonably foresee will be affected by his or her actions.
What is the case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) about?
Mr Grant contracted a severe case of dermatitis as a result of wearing woolen underpants manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. This was due to excess sulphite being in the wool.
In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) what did the courts decide?
The courts found the defendant liable (using the Donoghue v Stevenson ratio) as Australian Knitting Mills did not take reasonable care to make sure the product was free from defect. However, had they sold the product with a label (“must wash first”) they would not have been liable.
What is the case Otto v Bolton and Norris (1936) about?
Bolton and Norris built a house for Mr Otto. Part of the roof collapsed, injuring Mr Otto’s mother. Mr Otto claimed negligence.
What was the outcome of Otto v Bolton (1936)
Mr Otto claimed negligence and apple Donoghue v Stevenson. However due to fear of opening the floodgates the courts held the defendant not liable in negligence. This was due to the distinction between personal property (ginger beer, wool under pants) and real property (House).
What is the case Chandler v Crane, Christmas and Co (1951) about?
Mr Chandler invested in a someone’s tin mine based on financial accounts presented by Crane, Christmas and Co. These accounts showed a healthy business, but were incorrect. Mr Chandler lost his investment and took Crane, Christmas and Co to court
What was the result of Chandler v Crane, Christmas and Co?
The courts found the defendant not liable of negligence and held a 2/3 majority. This was because there was no contract between the two parties
What is the case Hedly Byrne v Heller & Partners (1964) about?
Contracted advertisers ask the clients bank whether they had enough capital to pay for their fees. The bank gave a positive response (But said they were not liable) but this was not true.
What was the outcome of the Hedly Byrne v Heller & Partners (1964) case?
Heller & partners were found liable of negligence even though no contract existed! Chandler v Crane, Christmas and Co was revisited and deemed incorrect.
What is the ratio of Hedley Byrne v Heller & Co?
Use of a effective disclaimer means that a person cannot be liable in negligent misstatement.
What is the obiter of Hedly Byrne v Heller & Partners (1964)
A person with special skills who apples that skill for the assistance of another person and provides info/advice will owe a duty of care to those who rely upon the info/advice
