Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Caparo industries plc v Dickman

A

The 3 part incremental test in deciding a duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Haley v LEB

A

‘foreseeable’ under duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bourhill v Young

A

‘Not foreseeable’ under duty of care
‘Not proximate’ under duty of care’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Osman v Ferguson

A

‘Proximate’ under duty of care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bolton v Stone

A

small risk of harm - no breach under breach of duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Walker v Northumberland

A

Increased risk to (C) under breach of duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Latimer v AEC ltd

A

resonable, practical precautions taken under breach of duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Watt v HCC

A

serving a socially useful purpose under breach of duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington HMC

A

factual causation under damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

McKew v Holland

A

Victims own actions under damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Knightley v Johns

A

‘natural and probable result’, act of a third party under damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Clerk and Lindsell on torts

A

treatment so grossly negligent, medical intervention, under damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Smith v Leech brain

A

thin skull rule, remoteness under damage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Frost v CCOSYP

A

‘matter for expert psychiatric evidence’, recognised psychiatric condition under psychiatric harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Vernon v Bosley

A

‘pathological grief disorder’, recognised psychiatric condition under psychiatric harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Page v Smith

A

‘Chronic fatigue syndrome’, recognised psychiatric condition under psychiatric harm
- a person of normal fortitude, primary victims under psychiatric harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Alcock v CCOSY

A

‘PTSD’, recognised psychiatric condition under psychiatric harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Hinz v Berry

A

‘Morbid depression’, recognised psychiatric condition under psychiatric harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Delieu v White

A

Primary victims

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Benson v Lee

A

Secondary victims

21
Q

Boylan v Keegan

A

Perceive events through own unaided senses, control criteria, under psychiatric harm

22
Q

Esso petroleum v Mardon

A

Special skill under negligent misstatements

23
Q

Hedley Byrne

A

Voluntary assumes responsibility under negligent misstatements

24
Q

Caparo v Dickman

A

Known user under negligent misstatements

25
Law society v Peat Marwick
Known purpose under negligent misstatements
26
Winfield and Jalowicz
definition of private nuisance
27
Dennis v MOD
loss of amenity and value to land under private nuisance
28
St Helens smelting company v Tipping
physical damage under private nuisance
29
Adams v Ursell
Locality under private nuisance
30
Christie v Davey
Malice under private nuisance
31
Robinson v Kilvert
Sensitivity of (C) under private nuisance
32
Ellison v MOD
natural accumulation under Ryland's v fletcher
33
Leakey v the national trust
(D) fails to deal with natural accumulation under Ryland's v fletcher
34
Shiffman v OOTHOSJOJ
Likely to cause mischief under Ryland's v fletcher
35
Viscount Simon
An escape under Ryland's v fletcher
36
Hale v Jenning brothers
Foreseeable damage under Ryland's v fletcher
37
Wheat v Lacon
Person with control over premises under occupiers liability
38
Laverton v Kiapasha Takeaway Supreme
common duty of care under occupiers liability
39
Glasgow corporation v Taylor
'allurement' under children under occupiers liability
40
Phipps v Rochester corporation
supervision of an adult under children under occupiers liability
41
Roles v Nathan
Tradesmen under independent contractor under occupiers liability
42
Bird v King line ltd
risk must be incidental to trade under independent contractor under occupiers liability
43
Bottomley v Todmomorden cc
reasonable steps to ensure contractor was competent under s.2(4)(b) under occupiers liability
44
Haseldine v Daw
more reasonable to delegate the work under s.2(4)(b) under occupiers liability
45
Brannon v airtours
blame for incident occurring in first place under contributory negligence under under occupiers liability
46
Froom v Butcher
behavior made injuries worse under contributory negligence under occupiers liability
47
Rae v Mars
warning may not be sufficient under contributory negligence under occupiers liability
48
Staples v WDDC
no additional warning signs required under warning signs under occupiers liability
49