cases Flashcards
Cambridge water v eastern counties leather plc
-negligence
-introduced fault to tort
-
donoghue v stevenson
-duty of care
-created the neighbour principle
-a snail was found in a root beer, v didn’t buy it but became sick, neither could claim
-
caparo v dickman
-duty of care
-caparo test
-shares were misvalued
kent v griffiths
-duty of care
-an ambulance was late in attending patient
-damage was reasonably foreseeable
bourhill v young
-duty of care
-‘nosy fishwife’ case, she chose to view the incident
-no proximity
hill v chief constable of south yorkshire
-duty of care
-c sued the police for failing to catch the serial killer who murdered her daughter
-police didn’t owe a duty of care
bolam v friend hospital management committee
-breach of duty of care
-c was undergoing ECT, doctor didn’t give an relaxants, c got a serious fracture
-professional will be judged by the standard of a reasonable person of their training
mullin v richards
-breach of duty of care
-2 15y/o girls fighting with plastic rulers, ruler snapped, splinter went into eye causing blindness
-child will be judged by the standard of a reasonable child
bolton v stone
-breach of duty of care
-should a cricket club take precautions to prevent injury of outsiders being hit
-the greater the risk, the more precautions that need to be taken
Latimer v AEC
-breach of duty of care
-c worked in d’s factory, slipped, factory was flooded, d had put up signs, mopped, used sawdust etc
-precautions don’t have to outweigh the risk
Paris v Stepney borough council
-breach of duty of care
-c had one eye, splinter at work went into working eye, employer didn’t give safety goggles
-the more serious the potential injury, the greater the level of care required
watt v Hertfordshire county council
-breach of duty of care
-c injured by equipment not secured due to a rush to save a life
-some risks are acceptable if the risk is socially important
barnett v Chelsea hospital
-damage
-doctor failed to examine a man who had been poisoned, if he had, it still wouldn’t have saved him
-damage must have been caused by the breach
the wagon mound
-damage
-ship leaked oil from Sydney harbour which led to a fire, destroying a wharf and boats
-damage must be foreseeable
hughes v lord advocate
-damage
-two boys explored a manhole, unforeseeable explosion occurred, caused serious injury
-precise chain of events need not be foreseeable
smith v leech brain
-damage
-result of d’s negligence, c got a burn in his lip, had pre-cancerous cells triggered by the injury, died 3y later
-not necessary for extent of damage to be foreseeable
Hedley byrne v heller
-pure economic loss
-byrne relied on a credit reference from Heller about a client, suffered financial loss when client went into liquidation
-
Chaudhry v Prabhakar
-pure economic loss
-d helped c purchase a car, didnt realise it was unroadworthy
-reliance as c believed d was knowledgeable about cars
JEB fasteners v bloom
-pure economic loss
-c acquired a company to make use of its directors
-c knew the financial state of the company so couldn’t claim reliance
hinz v berry
-psychiatric injury
-woman suffered depression after witnessing an accident that killed her husband and injured her children
-damages recoverable for mental injury
hicks v chief constable of south yorkshire
-psychiatric injury
-parents of Hillsborough stadium disaster sought damages for the fear of victims suffered prior to death
-‘fear by itself, is a normal human emotion for which no damages can be awarded’
page v smith
-psychiatric injury
-car accident caused by d’s negligence triggers a recurrence of c’s ME, illness was chronic and permanent, unable to work
-doesnt matter if the injury is psychiatric if some injury was foreseeable
Alcock v chief constable of south yorkshire
-psychiatric injury
-friends and family claimed for shock
-created the test for secondary victims
sion v Hampstead health authority
-psychiatric injury
-after being involved in an accident, c’s son was negligently treated in hospital and died after a fortnight
-death wasn’t sudden but was expected so c couldn’t claim
white v chief constable of south yorkshire
-psychiatric injury
-police officers at Hillsborough stadium disaster tried to claim
-rescuers can’t claim compensation as secondary victims
wheat v lacon
-occupiers liability (visitors)
-c’s husband died in a fall while staying in a public house
-both the brewery and the managers owed a duty
lowery v walker
-occupiers liability (visitors)
-c was inured by a dangerous horse when taking a commonly used shortcut
-license was implied though repeated trespass, which d was aware of
jolley v sutton
-occupiers liability (visitors)
-children (s2(3)(a))
-boys injured while attempting to repair an abandoned boat in a park
-council failed to move the boat, knew it would be attractive to children
roles v nathan
-occupiers liability (visitors)
-professionals (s2(3)(b)
-chimney sweeps dies of carbon dioxide poisoning while unblocking d’s chimney
-d wasn’t liable since c’s were experts
Darby v national trust
-occupiers liability (visitors)
-warnings (s2(4)(a))
-c;s husband drowned in a pond commonly used for paddling, d had taken no steps to prevent this
-risk was obvious, d didn’t need to give warnings
bottomley v todmorden cricket club
-occupiers liability (visitors)
-independent contractors (s2(4)(b))
-c was injured by a firework display held on d’s land but run by a contractor
-d was still liable since they didn’t check contractors license so hadn’t taken reasonable steps
white lion hotel v James
-occupiers liability (visitors)
-c fell out of a hotel window after sitting on the ledge, the window fastenings were broken
-visitors freely chosen risk doesn’t negate an occupiers liability, d was still liable
revill v newbery
-occupiers liability (trespass)
-c was a burglar, shot by d
-d was liable but contributory negligence was taken into account, reduced damages
donoghue v folkestone properties ltd
-occupiers liability (trespass)
-c was injured driving into folkestone harbour on Boxing Day
-unreasonable to guard against that when it isn’t summer, d wasn’t liable
Ratliff v McConnell
-occupiers liability (trespass)
-c injured diving into a college pool late at night
-locks and warning weren’t sufficient, so d wasn’t liable
keown v coventry healthcare NHS trust
-occupiers liability (trespass)
-c, a child, fell down a fire escape he had been climbing
-premises weren’t dangerous, d wasn’t liable
tomlinson v congleton
-occupiers liability (trespass)
-c was injured driving into a lake
-state of the premises weren’t inherently dangerous, what claimant chose to do was, d wasn’t liable
