CASE LAW- TORT Flashcards
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
Definition of occupier
Wheat v Lacon
- “An occupier is someone who has control over who is allowed to enter the premises’’
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
Lawful visitors and the OLA
Horton v Jackson
- The claimant was a golfer and lost sight after being hit by a golf ball. He filed a claim however the court stated that only 2 incidents had ever occured. There was a reasonable sign placed as a warning No breach of duty occured
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
Children (Allurement)
Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
- A 7 year old boy went into a public park and ate poisonous berries. Because the berries were an allurement to the child, the defendant breached their duty by leaving the berries as they were.
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
Children (No supervisor)
Phipps v Rochester Corporation
- a young brother and sister went to an area unaccompanied. The area had a long deep trench that had been dug and the defendant knew that the public would often pass this area. The child fell in and broke his leg. The defendant was NOT liable.
Lord Delvin: “Parents have a duty to see that such children are not allowed to wander by themselves.”
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
People carrying out a trade
Roles v Nathan
- 2 chimney sweeps were called by the defendant and an expert had given them warnings to seal the boiler before they lit it. They ignored this and were taken up by fumes. The defendant was not liable as they gave a warning
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
Liability for torts of Independant contractors
Haseldine v Daw
- The claimant was killed after stepping into an elevator that was made by a competent firm hence the occupier was not expected to check it.
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
Exclusion of liability
White v Blackmore
- The claimants husband was killed during a race however a notice had been posted at the entrance to the course stating that the defendant would not be liable for any accidents caused.
OCCUPIERS LIABILITY:
Unlawful visitors
Tomilson v Congleton Borough Council
- The claimant jumped inside a lake that was in a public park, despite it being forbidden to jump. He suffered an injury but the court stated that despite him being a lawful visitor to the public park, he became a trespasser when he dived into the lake.
RYLANDS V FLETCHER:
Who can be sued?
Read v Lyons
- A defendant is the person from whose land the ‘thing’ escaped.
RYLANDS V FLETCHER:
The escape caused mischief
Hale v Jennings Bros
- The defendant implimented a chair-o-plan in a playground. This hit the claimant and was held to be an escape of a ‘thing’ that was likely to cause harm
RYLANDS V FLETCHER:
Entry to land
Giles v Walker
- ‘Thistles’ : are naturally occurying so not brought into land / escape
RYLANDS V FLETCHER:
Escape
Miles v Forest Rock Granite co.
- Rocks escaped due to the explosion caused
RYLANDS V FLETCHER:
Defences (Consent)
Peters v Prince of Wales
- The claim failed as he was held to have consented to the presence of the system as it was kept in the theatre in case of fire.
RYLANDS V FLETCHER:
Defences (Statutory Authority)
Green v Chelsea waterworks
- A water system burst and caused damage to the claimants land. However this was authorized in order to maintain high pressure.
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
The But for Test
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee
- The claimant’s husband was told to go home by a doctor after getting ill. He died however the claim failed because even if he had been consulted, he would have still died
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
Loss of chance cases
Gregg v Scott
- The claimant had a lum and was misdiagnosed by one doctor. The second doctor said he had cancer. He had less than a 50% chance to survive and the court said the claim failed as even if he had been diagnosed earlier, it would not have hindered his progress.
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
Several concurrent cases of harm
McGhee v NCB
- The test could not apply as it was impossible to say that the claimants injuries would not have happened ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant. There’s a burden of proof on the claimant to proove negligence.
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
Consecutive causes of harm
Jobling v Associated Dairies
- The defendant was liable in negligence when the claimant sustained a back injury at work. He then contracted a spinal cord disease and tried to compensate for both injuries and disease however could only get compensated for the injury
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
Multiple tortfeasors
Holtby v Birgham and cowan
- The claimant suffered a lung condition due to the job he was doing at work. Multiple companies employed him for the same line of work.
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
Intervention by the claimant
McKew v Holland and Hanmen &cubits
- No liability for the additional injuries as the claiman walked down steep stairs with weak legs
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
Intervention by a third party
Knightley v Jones
- There was no liability as the police inspectors negligent behaviour was an intervening act
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS:
Test for Remoteness
The Wagon Mound (No.1)
- A ship called The wagon Mound negligently spilled oil into the ocean. sparks from a nearby wharf ignited the oil. This caused a fire and damaged ships. The Privy council rules that the damage was NOT foreseeable.
DEFENCES:
Volenti non fit injuria (Agreement)
Nettleship v Weston
- The claimant must agree expressly or impliedly to waive any claim for any injury that may befall on them as a result of the defendants negligence
DEFENCES:
Volenti non fit injuria (Kowledge & Understanding)
Wooldridge v Summer
- The court stated that consent to risk of injury is not enough as there must be consent in full knowledge of the nature and risk.
DEFENCES:
Volenti non fit injuria (Application in sports)
Condon v Basi
While a participant can accept the risks of injury within the rules of the sport, they cannot accept injuries that are outside of it.
DEFENCES:
Volenti non fit injuria (Application in employment)
Smith v Baker
- The claimant was injured when a stone fell out of the crane. He continued working. However merely continuing to work does not indicate voluntary consent
DEFENCES:
Contributory negligence
Jayes v IMI (Kynoch) ltd
The claimant was held to be 100% contributory negligent after he admitted that he knew that what he had done was foolish
DEFENCES:
Contributory negligence
(Claimant is a child)
Evans v Souls Garage
- The defendant was found to be negligent by selling underage boys petrol. Damages were reduced by 1/3 as the boys were aware that petrol was dangerous
DEFENCES:
Contributory negligence
(Claimant is a cyclist)
Smith v Finch
- Because the claimant was not wearing a helmet, he was found to be contributory negligent
