Cases

Question 1

Caldwell - Elliot v C

Answer 1

Binding Precedent

Caldwell - Objective Test (would a reasonable person have foreseen the risk?)
Elliot v C - 14y old girl with learning difficulties ran from home and set fire to a shed when

Question 2

LNER v Berriman

Answer 2

Literal Rule

Man killed whiles oiling the track and his wife tried to claim compensation. Court said that oiling the tracks is not “relaying or repairing” so Mrs Berriman was not entitled to compensation

Question 3

Fisher v Bell

Answer 3

Literal Rule

It was an offence to offer for sale a flick knife. D had a flick knife on his shop window, however this is known as an invitation to treat. So taking this literally D was found not guilty

Question 4

R v Allen

Answer 4

Golden Rule - Narrow Approach

It was an offence to marry someone whilst still married
The word “marry” had two meanings:
1 - legally marry
2 - marriage ceremony

Question 5

Re Sigsworth

Answer 5

Golden Rule - Broader Approach

Son murdered his mother to inherit her money, as she didn’t make a will her next of kin the son would of inherited the money. The court felt that letting him benefit from his crime would be a repugnant situation

Question 6

DPP v Bull

Answer 6

Mischief Rule

It was an offence for a “common prostitute to solicit in the streets”, this case involved a male prostitute. The oxford dictionary stated that the phrase “common prostitute” referred to both men and women, however in the Wolfenden Report only females would come under the phrase “common prostitute”.
Mischief Rule - not guilty

Question 7

Smith v Hughes

Answer 7

Mischief Rule

It was an offence for a “common prostitute to solicit in the streets”. In this case the prostitute was on a balcony. The aim of this offence was to stop men being harassed on the street.
Literal Rule - not guilty
Mischief Rule - guilty

Question 8

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

Answer 8

Mischief Rule

Abortion Act stated abortions were only legal if performed by a doctor, as technology improved nurses could do them too.
Literal Rule - illegal
Purpose of the Act was to prevent back street abortions
Mischief Rule - legal

Question 9

R v Registrar General ex Parte Smith

Answer 9

Purposive Approach

Adoption Act stated that at the age of 18 you could have access to your birth certificate. The person wishing to do so had mental problems, he wanted to find his mother and kill her.

Question 10

Jones v Tower Boot Company

Answer 10

Purposive Approach

Race Relations Act protected people from discrimination that occurred “in the course of employment”. D experienced it before and after work from a fellow employee. The purpose was to prevent discrimination in general

Question 11

Jones v Tower Boot Company

Answer 11

Purposive Approach

Race Relation Act set out a principle to protect people from discrimination that occurred in the course of employment. D experienced racial discrimination before and after work. Purpose of the act was to prevent discrimination in general so employer was liable

Question 12

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 12

Facts:
Mrs Donoghue found a decomposed snail at the bottom of a can and try to sue the manufacture for negligence

Principle:
Neighbour Principle - “You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”

Question 13

Caparo v Dickman

Answer 13

Principle:
Caparo Test
- reasonably foreseeable
- proximity
- fair, just and reasonable

Question 14

Kent v Griffiths

Answer 14

Facts:
Claimant was pregnant and suffered an asthma attack. It took 38 min for the ambulance to arrive and as a result she suffered a respiratory arrest, leading to her miscarriage and a substantial memory impairment. She wanted to sue the ambulance services for negligence

Principle:
It was reasonably foreseeable that the C would suffer further illness if the ambulance did not arrive promptly

Question 15

Bourhill v Young

Answer 15

Facts:
Claimant was pregnant and heard a motorcycle collision. She sees the aftermath of the collision, the body was removed but there is still some blood. She goes into shock and goes into early labour.

Principle:
The motorcyclist didn’t owe Mrs Bourhill a duty of care as he could not anticipate that his accident would cause mental injury to a bystander

Question 16

Robinson v West Yorkshire Police

Answer 16

Facts:
The police were making a planned arrest but failed to secure the area. The C was a 78yo woman who got injured because she got knocked down during the arrest.

Principle:
When a third party is injured as a result of a negligent arrest, the police are liable in negligence where that injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the police’s actions

Question 17

Bolam v Barnet Hospital

Answer 17

Facts:
C was undergoing therapy to treat his illness and the doctor did not give any relaxant drugs so C suffered a serious fracture. If the drug was given there was a small risk of death, if they didn’t give it there was a risk of fracture. C said the doctor has breached his duty of care.

Principle;
Hospital had followed the opinions of other professionals and therefore did not breach its duty of care

Question 18

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 18

Principle:

Learners are judged at the standard of the competent, more experienced person

Question 19

Mullin v Richards

Answer 19

Principle:

Children and young people are judged at the standard of the reasonable child of the same age

Question 20

Bolton v Stone

Answer 20

Facts:
Miss Stone was injured when she was hit in the head with a cricket ball. The cricket club put a large fence and in 30 years this happened 6 times for a ball to go over it.

Principle:
The cricket club had done everything they needed to do in view of the low risk

Question 21

Latimer v AEC Ltd

Answer 21

Facts:
C worked in a factory and it has flooded due to bad weather. C slipped however D has moped, put a sign up and put saw dust on the floor. C said D breached his duty of care.

Principle:
Factory owners had taken reasonable steps to reduce the risk of injury. Did not need to eliminate every risk possible

Question 22

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Answer 22

Facts:
Mr Barnett went to the hospital complaining of severe stomach ache and vomiting. Nurse called the doctor and the doctor told her to send him home and contact his GP in the morning. He died 5h later from arsenic poisoning. Family wants to sue the hospital.

Principle:
As the arsenic was already in his system, no treatment would have saved his life, therefore his death was not caused by the doctors breach of duty

Question 23

Wagon Mound

Answer 23

Facts:
D’s boat was leaking oil into the sea and some debris got mixed up with the oil. Some sparks from nearby welding work ignited the oil and the fire spreads destroying the boat.

Principle:
The fire damage was not reasonably foreseeable. It was too remote from the original negligent act of spilling the oil

Question 24

Wheat v E.Lacon + Co Ltd

Answer 24

Facts:
The manager of a pub was giving the right to rent rooms even though he didn’t own the premises. A guest fell down an unlit staircase and died because of the injuries

Principle:
There may be more than one occupier of the premises

Question 25

Bailey v Armes

Answer 25

Facts:
D lived in a flat above a supermarket. They let their son play on the flat roof above their flat. Their son took a friend up to the roof and his friend fell off and got injured.

Principle:
You have to have sufficient control to be an occupier

Question 26

Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway

Answer 26

Facts:
Owners fitted slip proof tiles and when it rained they had moped the floor and put a sign up. C went into the shop and she fell and broke her ankle.

Principle:
Owners had taken reasonable care to ensure customers were safe. They were not liable as they did not have to make the shop completely safe

Question 27

Dean v Debell

Answer 27

Facts:
C was injured when he tripped and fell over a small lump of concrete that was sticking out of a bollard.

Principle:
A visitor is reasonably safe even if there may be a visible minor defect which carries a foreseeable risk of causing accidental injury

Question 28

Glasgow v Taylor

Answer 28

Facts:
A 7yo girl picked some berries from a bush in a park and ate them. They turned out to be poisonous and she died. The bush was not fenced off and parents wanted to sue the council.

Principle:
Occupier should guard against any allurement or attraction which places a child visitor at risk of harm

Question 29

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

Answer 29

Facts:
Council failed to move an abandoned boat for 2 years. Two 14yo boys lifted the boat and tried to fix it. The boat fell and one of them was seriously injured, council tried to argue that what the boys did was not foreseeable.

Principle:
It was foreseeable that children would play on the abandoned boat. It was not necessary for the council to foresee exactly what they would do on it

Question 30

Jolley v London Borough of Sutton

Answer 30

Facts:
Council failed to move an abandoned boat for 2 years. Two 14yo boys lifted the boat and tried to fix it. The boat fell and one of them was seriously injured, council tried to argue that what the boys did was not foreseeable.

Principle:
It was foreseeable that children would play on the abandoned boat. It was not necessary for the council to foresee exactly what they would do on it

Question 31

Phipps

Answer 31

Parents were responsible for a 5yo

Question 32

Roles v Nathan

Answer 32

Facts:
Two chimney sweeps died from inhaling Carbon Monoxide fumes. Both men were aware of this risk.

Principle:
The occupier is not liable as they could have expected chimney sweeps to be aware of the danger

Question 33

Haseldine v Daw and son Ltd

Answer 33

Facts:
Claimant was killed when a lift plunged to the bottom of a shaft. Occupier was not liable for negligent repair of maintenance of the lift.

Principle:
This was highly specialist activity and it was reasonable to give the work to a specialist firm

Question 34

Woodward v The Mayor of Hastings

Answer 34

Facts:
A child was injured when they fell at school on some outdoor steps that were left icy. They have paid a company to get rid of the snow.

Principle:
The occupier had failed to take reasonable steps to check that the work had been done properly. The danger should have been obvious to them

Question 35

Herrington

Answer 35

Facts:

6yo boy was badly burned when he trespassed on to the railway line. Practice Statement was used to change the law

Question 36

Rhind v Astbury

Answer 36

Facts:
C was injured as a result of hitting his head on fibreglass at the bottom of a lake.

Principle:
The occupier was not liable as he was not aware of the danger and had no reason to suspect the danger existed

Question 37

Higgs v Foster

Answer 37

Facts:
A police officer investigating a crime entered the premises without a warrant. He fell and suffered severe injuries.

Principle:
Occupiers knew about the danger but they could not have anticipated the police officer’s presence

Question 38

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

Answer 38

Facts:
Council owned a park including a lake and warning signs were posted prohibiting swimming and diving. They knew these signs were ignored and were waiting for funds to make the lake inaccessible. A 18yo swimming in the lake hit his head and became paralysed.

Principle:
It was an obvious danger and it was not reasonable foreseeable for the council to spend much money on it

Question 39

Ratcliff v McConnell

Answer 39

Facts:
19yo student climbed the fence of the swimming pool, dived and hit his head at the bottom of the pool, he was seriously injured.

Principle:
The occupier was not required to warn the adult trespasser of the risk of injury arising from an obvious danger

Question 40

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties

Answer 40

Facts:
C was injured when he hit a grid pile at a harbour. The grid pile would have been visible at a low tide. The injury happened in the middle of winter at around midnight.

Principle:
Occupier did not expect a trespasser to be present or jump into the harbour at that time of the day

Question 41

Hill v Baxter

Answer 41

Facts:
Court gave examples of when a driver won’t be acting voluntarily: being stung by a bee, heart attack, a rock hits the car.

Principle:
To commit the actus reus of a crime the D’s conduct must be voluntary

Question 42

Larsonneur

Answer 42

Facts:
D was a French woman, who got deported against her will from Ireland to England. When she arrived she was charged with the offence of being an “illegal alien”.

Principle:
For state of affair crimes the actus reus does not have to be performed voluntarily. The actus reus occurs by being found in certain situations

Question 43

Gibbins v Proctor

Answer 43

Facts:
The D and his girlfriend neglected his 7yo daughter. They locked her in a room and failed to feed her so she died of starvation.

Principle:
D was liable for his omission
Parent-Child relationship so he had a duty of care for his daughter

Question 44

Adomako

Answer 44

Facts:
D was an anaesthetist in charge of a patient during an eye operation. During the operation, the oxygen tube disconnected and the patient died. It took him 6min to notice this, a competent doctor would have noticed in a few seconds. He was convicted with gross negligence manslaughter

Principle:
D had a duty because of his contract. He was liable for his omission

Question 45

Stone v Dobinson

Answer 45

Facts:
S + D offered to take S’ sister to live with them. S had sever disabilities, D had learning difficulties and V couldn’t care for herself. S took care of the victim but her attempts were not sustained and V has passed away.

Principle:
Convicted with manslaughter as they had voluntarily accepted a duty to look after V

Question 46

Miller

Answer 46

Facts:
D falls asleep whilst smoking a cigarette. He wakes up to find the mattress on fire, he goes and sleeps in another room. There was damage to the building and he was convicted with arson.

Principle:
D was under a duty to remedy the dangerous situation he had created

Question 47

R v White

Answer 47

Facts:
D put poison in his mothers drink with the intention to kill her, but she died from a heart attack.

Principle:
“But For what D did would V still have died?” Therefore D not liable for murder as his actions were not the factual cause

Question 48

Pagget

Answer 48

Facts:
D comes out of his flat and uses his pregnant ex girlfriend as a human shield. D starts to fire shots at the police and the D aims to shoot the D but shoots the girl.

Principle:
“But For” Test
Therefore the D was the factual causation of the death

Question 49

Roberts

Answer 49

Facts:
The V was given a lift by D. He starts driving in another direction and makes some sexual threats. She believes he is going to rape her and jumps out of the car. She survives but has bruising and a concussion

Principle:
If the V’s actions were reasonably foreseeable the chain of causation will not be broken. In order to break the chain V must do something so daft or unexpected

Question 50

Williams

Answer 50

Facts:
D picked up a hitchhiker who ends up jumping out of the car and dies from his head injuries. The P argued that the D was going to steal from the hitchhiker. D was convicted with manslaughter.

Principle:
Where the threat is very minor and V takes drastic action it is more likely to break the chain of causation

Question 51

Wallace

Answer 51

Facts:
Found guilty of a sadistic and evil acid attack that left her former partner with such terrible injuries that he was driven to euthanasia.

Principle:
Judge said the V’s actions were not a new intervening act. She should of been convicted of murder, but the jury only found her guilty for the acid attack

Question 52

Kennedy

Answer 52

Facts:
D gave V a syringe with heroin, V injected it himself and died as a result. D is convicted with manslaughter but tries to argue that V broke the chain by choosing to inject himself.

Principle:
Self injection by the V is a new and intervening act. V’s own actions did break the chain of causation

Question 53

Smith

Answer 53

Facts:
A soldier has been stabbed by another soldier, he was taken to a medical centre and the doctors failed to notice he had a punctured lung. He died as a result.

Principle:
Negligent medical treatment will not break the chain of causation if the original wound was an operating and substantial (ongoing and significant) cause of death

Question 54

Jordan

Answer 54

Facts:
D stabbed V in the stomach, V was taken to the hospital and the wound was healing well, he suffered an allergic reaction to a medication and the doctor gave the same medication again, as a result he died.

Principle:
The hospital treatment was described as palpably wrong. The doctors knew about the allergy it was sufficiently independent to break the chain of causation

Question 55

Malcherek

Answer 55

Facts:
D had stabbed his wife several times and was taken to hospital and placed on life support. She had no brain activity and the doctors decided to switch off her life support and she died.

Principle:
Switching off life support machine by a doctor when it has been decided that the victim is brain dead does not break the chain of causation

Question 56

Nedrick

Answer 56

Facts:
D fallen out with a woman, he pours petrol in her letter box and sets it to light. A child dies in the fire and D was convicted of murder. He tries to argue he intended to scare not murder or seriously harm.

Principle:
CoA - how probable was the consequence?
- did the D foresee that consequence?

If D realised that death or seriously harm were virtually certain then this is evidence from which the injury could infer that D had oblique intention

Question 57

Woolin

Answer 57

Facts:
D lost his temper when his baby started chocking, he picked him up shook him and threw him across the room. As a result of the injuries the baby died. D tried to argue he didn’t intend to kill or seriously harm.

Principle:
D must have realised that death or serious injury was virtually certain. Where the jury were satisfied on this then there was evidence on which they could find intention

Question 58

Latimer

Answer 58

Facts:
D had an argument in a pub, he took his belt off and used it as a weapon. He swings the belt at the target, the man moves and he hits a woman in the face.

Principle:
Using the principle of transferred malice, the D’s mens rea for the intended victim could be transferred to the actual victim

Question 59

Blaue

Answer 59

Facts:
D stabbed the V several times after refusing to have sex with him. She was a Jehovah’s witness and her religion did not let consent to a blood transfusion. As a result she died.

Principle:
The court applied the Egg Shell Rule and said “that those who use violence on others must take their victims as they find them”

Question 60

Fagan

Answer 60

Facts:
D was parking his car and accidently driven on a police mans foot. When he realises he switches off the engine and refuses to move the car. He tried to argue that at the time of committing the actus reus he lacked any mens rea.

Principle:
Driving onto the foot and remaining there was a continuing act and it was enough that D had the mens rea at some point during it - continuing act theory

Question 61

Thabo Meli

Answer 61

Facts:
Ds planned to kill a man and make it look like an accident. They beaten him over the head and believed they had killed him so they threw his body of a cliff. Medical evidence showed he died at the bottom of the cliff. They were convicted of murder and tried to argue when they had the mens rea the man was still alive, when he died they didn’t have it.

Principle:
A series of acts will be treated as one transaction. If the mens rea was present at any time during any of these acts then it can be said to coincide with actus reus