Cases

Question 0

Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital

Answer 0

“But for” test

Question 1

Blythe v Birmingham Water a Works

Answer 1

A standard of care must be objective and based on the reasonable man

Question 2

Hughs v Lord Advocate

Answer 2

Damage of the same time is reasonably foreseeable

Question 3

Smith v Leech Brain & Co

Answer 3

The “egg-shell skull” rule

Take your victim as you find them

Question 4

Freeman v Home Office

Answer 4

The burden is on the claimant to show absence of consent

Question 5

ICI v Shatwell

Answer 5

Being aware of the risk may be agreement to the risk

Question 6

Titchener v British Railways Board

Answer 6

Must be clear consent

Question 7

Dann v Hamilton

Answer 7

It must be an “intrinsically and obviously dangerous situation” for volenti non fit injuria to apply

Question 8

White v Blackmore

Answer 8

Exclusion clauses may not apply where there isn’t knowledge of the particular danger

Question 9

Fardon v Harcourt-Rivington

Answer 9

“People must guard against reasonable probabilities, but they are not bound to guarded against fantastic possibilities” Lord Dunedin

Question 10

Pritchard v Co-op

Answer 10

A) Contributory negligence cannot apply to assault or battery (1945 act)
B) Expert opinions must be explained why they are rejected

Question 11

Pitts v Hunt

Answer 11

Ex turpi causa could not be claimed as there was a joint common purpose

Question 12

Morris v Murray

Answer 12

Where there is an obviously and intrinsically dangerous activity that a claimant has full knowledge of then they are voluntarily assuming risk

Question 13

Donoghue v Stevenson

Answer 13

1) the neighbour principle

2) a duty of care from manufacturer to consumer

Question 14

Gray v Thames Trains

Answer 14

Criminal conduct breaks the chain of causation

Question 15

Bolton v Stone

Answer 15

Factors to consider:

1) foreseeability of harm
2) magnitude of the risk

Question 16

Bolam Test

Answer 16

Conduct is judged according to a reasonable person with that skill

Question 17

Nettleship v Weston

Answer 17

A standard of care must be hypothetical

Question 18

Caparo Principle

Answer 18

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?

Question 19

Gregg v Scott

Answer 19

“All or nothing” approach
Balance of probabilities
*Bareness Hale’s judgement discusses proportionate compensation as unfair

Question 20

Chester v Afshar

Answer 20

It is a principle of good medical practice to disclose risk

Question 21

Compensation Act 2006

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Willsher v Essex Health Authority

Answer 22

A defendant must have caused a “material increase in risk” to be liable