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