Cases Flashcards
Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital
“But for” test
Blythe v Birmingham Water a Works
A standard of care must be objective and based on the reasonable man
Hughs v Lord Advocate
Damage of the same time is reasonably foreseeable
Smith v Leech Brain & Co
The “egg-shell skull” rule
Take your victim as you find them
Freeman v Home Office
The burden is on the claimant to show absence of consent
ICI v Shatwell
Being aware of the risk may be agreement to the risk
Titchener v British Railways Board
Must be clear consent
Dann v Hamilton
It must be an “intrinsically and obviously dangerous situation” for volenti non fit injuria to apply
White v Blackmore
Exclusion clauses may not apply where there isn’t knowledge of the particular danger
Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington
“People must guard against reasonable probabilities, but they are not bound to guarded against fantastic possibilities” Lord Dunedin
Pritchard v Co-op
A) Contributory negligence cannot apply to assault or battery (1945 act)
B) Expert opinions must be explained why they are rejected
Pitts v Hunt
Ex turpi causa could not be claimed as there was a joint common purpose
Morris v Murray
Where there is an obviously and intrinsically dangerous activity that a claimant has full knowledge of then they are voluntarily assuming risk
Donoghue v Stevenson
1) the neighbour principle
2) a duty of care from manufacturer to consumer
Gray v Thames Trains
Criminal conduct breaks the chain of causation
Bolton v Stone
Factors to consider:
1) foreseeability of harm
2) magnitude of the risk
Bolam Test
Conduct is judged according to a reasonable person with that skill
Nettleship v Weston
A standard of care must be hypothetical
Caparo Principle
1) check for direct or closely related precedent
2) incremental approach:
i) foreseeability of harm
ii) sufficiency of proximity
iii) is it fair, just and reasonable to impose liability?
Gregg v Scott
“All or nothing” approach
Balance of probabilities
*Bareness Hale’s judgement discusses proportionate compensation as unfair
Chester v Afshar
It is a principle of good medical practice to disclose risk
Compensation Act 2006
Compensation should be apportioned to the claimant in order to benefit them
In the cases of mesothelioma each defendant is liable for the full amount
Willsher v Essex Health Authority
A defendant must have caused a “material increase in risk” to be liable
