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
BREACH OF DUTY:
The reasonable man
Glasgow Corporation v Muir
- G allowed a church picnic group to go inside their premises and a tea urn was dropped where some children were. G was NOT liable because the tea urn was in the hands of responsible parents that had reasonable care
BREACH OF DUTY:
High Standard of care
Herris v Perry
- A child kicked another child in the head under the supervision of an adult. The COA concluded it would be impossible to remove all risks that where children were playing 1 child may injur another. There was No liability
BREACH OF DUTY:
Foreseeability of the risk
Walker v Nothumberland County Council
- The claimant was a social worker and was very stressed after missing work for 3 months. The council agreed to givr him support snd reduced the work load but this did not work and he suffered another mental breakdown. They were held liable for negligence
BREACH OF DUTY:
Extent of possible harm
Paris v Stepney Borough Council
- The defendant had employed a partially blind mechanic and a piece of metal flew into the claimants sighted eye. He became completely blind. The defendant had greater risks so this meant he had greater precautions
BREACH OF DUTY:
Children
Mullin v Richards
- The 15 year old defendant was not liable for injuring the claimant after playing with plastic rulers. It was because the court held the risk of harm not to be foreseeable
BREACH OF DUTY:
Children(rebuttal)
Zanner v Zanner
- The defendant was 11 years and had been driving his fathers care for a while. One day however, he ran over his mother and was found liable as he was held to the same standard as a reasonable driver.
BREACH OF DUTY:
Medical experts
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee
- The claimant suffered a fractured to his hip after going through ECT. The doctor was not held liable for not giving him relaxants drugs as it was approved by other medical experts.
NOVEL DUTY SITUATIONS:
Special relationship
Hedley Byrne v Heller and Partners
- The claimant wanted to find out their financial status from the bank (defendant). The bank said they were financially sound but they actually suffered a financial loss. The court held that a duty of care would arise where ther is a special relationship
NOVEL DUTY SITUATIONS:
Reasonable reliance by the claimant
JEB fasteners v Marks Bloom
- a firm prepared accounts for their client and negligently overstated the value of the stock by the company.
NOVEL DUTY SITUATIONS:
Voluntary assumption of responsbility
Commissioner Police of the Metropolis v Lennon
- The police adviser had voluntarily assumed responsibility for advising the claimant.
NOVEL DUTY SITUATIONS:
Recovery of damages without reliance
White v Jones
- The claimants were sisters who had an inheritance and the solicitor was instructed to create a new will however the solicitor delayed and failed to act.
NOVEL DUTY SITUATIONS:
Nervous shock (secondary victims)
Hambrook v Stokes
The claimants wife witnessed a lorry going downhill where her cildren were. Her children survived but she suffered nervous shock and died due to the fright
NOVEL DUTY SITUATIONS:
Nervous shock ( Restrictions on the scope of nervous shock)
Taylor v A Novo
- A daughter who was not present when her mom was injurred at work, claimed for nervous shock when her mom suddenly died. The court reaffirmed the strict controls surrounding secondary victims.
PRIVATE NUISANCE:
Unreasonable intereference
Southwork London Borough Council v Mills
- The noise experienced at the appartment was normal for that type of residentual building
PRIVATE NUISANCE:
Factors considered by the court (Locality)
Sturges v Bridgman
- A doctor created consultation rooms next to a factory and claimed for noise nuisance
PRIVATE NUISANCE:
Sensitivity
Robinson v Kilvert
If the nuisance had harmed a person or property that was not abnormally sensitive, the defendant would be liable.
PRIVATE NUISANCE:
Defences
Allen v Gulf Oil Refinement
- The key issue was whether the Gulf Oil’s operation constituted an unreasonable interference with Allen’s land. Despite there being disturbances they were necessary for industrial development with proper precautions.
TRESPASS TO LAND:
Defining land
Lord Bernstein v Skyviews
- The claimant argued that when an aeroplane flew above his property taking photographs, this was a trespass to land. However the court said that it did not affect the ordinary use of the land
ASSAULT:
Words and Silence
Read v Cocker
- The court questioned whether an assualt occured even though no physical contact had occured as the defendant was verbally threatning him.
BATTERY:
Force
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- by mistake the defendant stopped his car on a police officers foot. However he intentionality failed to move the car despite the officer shouting ‘‘get off my foot!!’’
BATTERY:
Intention + force
William v Humphrey
- The defendant pushed the claimant into a swimming pool and ended up breaking his ankle. Even though the defendant did not mean to hurt the claimant, he intended to push him, so was liable.
BATTERY:
Consent in sport
R v Billingshurst
- a punch thrown at an opponent will not be within the rules of the game of rugby so battery was committed.
BATTERY:
Self defence
Revill v Newbury
- He was still held liable as he used greater force than was necessary
FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
Intention
Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council
- This case made it clear that intention was an essential element due to the claimant being trapped in a cubicle however the council hadn’t intended for that to happen
FALSE IMPRISONMENT:
Total restraint
Bird v Jones
- it was held that there was no false imprisonment as there was an alternative route and partial closure is NOT the same as total restraint.
REMEDIES:
Calculation of damages- non pecuniary
Doyle v Wallace
- The claimant suffered an injury from the defendant and was not able to complete her training. The court awarded compensation reflecting the loss of her earnings
REMEDIES:
Expense incurred by a 3rd party
Donnelly v Joyce
- The claimant (a child) was able to claim for this type of loss when his mother had to give up work to look after him
REMEDIES:
Aggravated damages
Rowlands v Chief Constable of merseyside
- The COA awarded the claimant aggravated damages due to the amount of humiliation and distress she suffered on arrest.
REMEDIES
Mandatory injunctions
Redlands Bricks ltd v Morris
- the claimant was granted a mandatory injunction to provide support for the land and to prevent further digging.
